What If: crit when beat AC by 5 or more

[Skrum]

So instead of an attacker being equally likely to crit a robed wizard as a plated fighter, it's much harder to crit the fighter.

The number doesn't have to be 5 either; it could be/probably should higher. Maybe 7?

Personally, I don't like the extra math involved and having to remember essentially two AC numbers, but I do like the base math - make having more armor worth more, as well as make boosting your attack roll that much better.

[P. G. Macer]

I’m pretty sure Pathfinder 2e does something along this line; maybe look there for further inspiration?

[Cikomyr2]

I played with the idea of doing "critical as excess to AC" when i wanted to add a Savage World-flavor to the game and allow for exploding dice on max roll.

For ***everything***. Then i realized a nat 20 should explode as well, so i needed to make the possibility of a double-exploding die interesting. So I realized an ever-progressing scale of bonus damage should apply.

Instead of "double damage", i was thinking the rule should be +1 biggest die you have/per 5 above the AC.

Thing is, I wanted to minimize the math involved, and i also consider making it +1die/10 AC. With exploding damage dice, every additional die can be really consequential.

[stoutstien]

I just made the damage dealt by attacks to be the difference between the AC and the rolls total. You roll a 15 with mods targeting 10 AC, you deal 5 damage.

Criticals can happen on any attack with the weapons that are capable of it. They occur ~10% of the time after accounting for missed attacks.

[Arkhios]

Would nat20 still be an automatic hit, even if not a crit?

Edit: to rephrase that, I have a feeling that with nat20 still being a hit, but a crit requiring a value exceeding the AC by X would eventually lead to strange situations.

[DeTess]

I think the main problem is that there are a bunch of monsters, particularly at higher CR's, that have very high hit bonuses. Think stuff like adult red dragons and the like who could roll a crit like this very easily. If you incorporate this idea you'd have to redo some monster math and CR's to avoid nasty surprises.

There are systems that do something like this, but they tend to reduce how effective crits are on the NPC side. For example, in Lancer you crit whenever you roll a 20 or higher in total, but crits only allow you to roll your damage dice twice and pick the highest number (though there are some stuff you can unlock that adds bonus damage on crits). In this system however the vest majority of NPC's do fixed damage on hit, and there fore don't benefit from crits at all.

[Mastikator]

So instead of an attacker being equally likely to crit a robed wizard as a plated fighter, it's much harder to crit the fighter.

The number doesn't have to be 5 either; it could be/probably should higher. Maybe 7?

Personally, I don't like the extra math involved and having to remember essentially two AC numbers, but I do like the base math - make having more armor worth more, as well as make boosting your attack roll that much better.

Try it at your table and tell us. Run a one-shot with this homebrew rule.

[Chronos]

Quoth Cikomyr2:

Thing is, I wanted to minimize the math involved, and i also consider making it +1die/10 AC. With exploding damage dice, every additional die can be really consequential.
Exploding dice actually aren't all that consequential. Everyone pays attention to the shiny "I can do unlimited damage with a single attack!", but those very high damage values almost never actually come up. On average, exploding dice only add about +1 per roll (depending on exactly how you implement them).

[Unoriginal]

So instead of an attacker being equally likely to crit a robed wizard as a plated fighter, it's much harder to crit the fighter.

The number doesn't have to be 5 either; it could be/probably should higher. Maybe 7?

Personally, I don't like the extra math involved and having to remember essentially two AC numbers, but I do like the base math - make having more armor worth more, as well as make boosting your attack roll that much better.

PCs who are not focused on AC will generally have between 15 and 19 AC for their whole careers.

PCs who are focused on AC will generally have between 20 and 23.

Let's take a randomly selected CR 6 monster... I got "Mist Hulk" from Bigby Presents: Glory of the Giants, with two +8 attacks.

That means crit on a 17, if the PC has 20 AC, or crit on a 14 if the PC has 17 AC.

Now let's take a randomly selected CR 10 monster. I got "Young Gold Dragon" from the MM, with three +10 attacks.

That means crit on a 15 if the PC has 20 AC, or crit on a 12 if the PC has 17 AC.


I don't think that having 30% chances to get critted against a CR 10 enemy when you're in plate armor with a shield is an enjoyable prospect.

[RSP]

I don't think that having 30% chances to get critted against a CR 10 enemy when you're in plate armor with a shield is an enjoyable prospect.

Just to build on this analysis:

Crits generally help monsters more than PCs, unless the PC is specifically built for crits. Monsters tend to have bigger dice pools behind their attacks, which get doubled. While the usual route to adding damage for a PC is bonuses like “add [stat] mod to damage” or the +10 from GWM/SS. Paladins and Rogues benefit with Smites and SA, respectively.

Also, crits against mooks are less helpful and sometime just wasted damage due to their lower HP total, while any crit the monsters make is much more likely being done on a PC, and be much more a significant factor in the combat. Removing any given monster from the fight is less impactful than taking down a PC.

[Cikomyr2]

Exploding dice actually aren't all that consequential. Everyone pays attention to the shiny "I can do unlimited damage with a single attack!", but those very high damage values almost never actually come up. On average, exploding dice only add about +1 per roll (depending on exactly how you implement them).

Mathematically, you are right.

But i said "every damage die CAN be consequential". I.e., theres always a chance that the goblin with 1d4+2 attack get a lucky break and does 20 point of damage.

Personally, i love these huge swings and minimize combat time, making every attacks a potentially very dramatic occurrence. But its a personal preference of how i enjoy my tabletop rpg, not my study in Game Theory or balance or whatnot.

[Psyren]

So instead of an attacker being equally likely to crit a robed wizard as a plated fighter, it's much harder to crit the fighter.

The fighter already has more HP, so the equal chance to crit still affects them less, so I'm not sure what this adds. It sounds similar to PF2, but keep in mind PF2's approach is predicated on that game's much tighter math, and also critical successes often do more than just damage, making them more dramatic. Fighters also have even more effective HP once you factor in Second Wind and Indomitable, especially the improved versions of both we're getting this year.

TL;DR try it and see if you like it but I don't think it will be as good a fit for 5e as it might appear.

[LibraryOgre]

In 2e, with the Combat and Tactics supplement, crits became "18 or higher on the dice, and beat the AC by 5 or more." So, if you can only hit on a 20, you won't crit, but if you can hit on a 10, you still need at least an 18 on the die.

Crits went to people with better skills.

[Zuras]

The fighter already has more HP, so the equal chance to crit still affects them less, so I'm not sure what this adds. It sounds similar to PF2, but keep in mind PF2's approach is predicated on that game's much tighter math, and also critical successes often do more than just damage, making them more dramatic. Fighters also have even more effective HP once you factor in Second Wind and Indomitable, especially the improved versions of both we're getting this year.

TL;DR try it and see if you like it but I don't think it will be as good a fit for 5e as it might appear.

Yeah, I don’t like the idea for the extra damage side of crits, but the ability to add extra effects for successes more than 5 or 10 sounds fun. The problem is you really need a full alternate monster manual detailing those effects on a creature by creature basis, plus a mighty deeds system (like DCC’s) detailing what PCs can do.

[stoutstien]

Mathematically, you are right.

But i said "every damage die CAN be consequential". I.e., theres always a chance that the goblin with 1d4+2 attack get a lucky break and does 20 point of damage.

Personally, i love these huge swings and minimize combat time, making every attacks a potentially very dramatic occurrence. But its a personal preference of how i enjoy my tabletop rpg, not my study in Game Theory or balance or whatnot.

Check out CWN traumatic hit mechanic. Any hit can be a trauma if it meets the threshold. It's usually a 6 and the smallest die is a d6 but it be as high as a D12. If it happens it flat out multiplies the damage X2 to X4. A goblin with a small blade might do 1-2 damage on miss, ~6 damage on a hit, and 18 damage on a traumatic hit. Makes better armor and avoiding unnecessary attacks vital but at the same time I don't think tactics is meant to be *that* big of a deal nowadays. the normal number of attacks in it is *1* but it's not hard to modify it for something like DND.

So far it's been a good way to make 2hd weapons actually worth something besides a means to apply feats.

[KorvinStarmast]

I played with the idea of doing "critical as excess to AC" when i wanted to add a Savage World-flavor to the game and allow for exploding dice on max roll.

For ***everything***. Then i realized a nat 20 should explode as well, so i needed to make the possibility of a double-exploding die interesting. So I realized an ever-progressing scale of bonus damage should apply.

Instead of "double damage", i was thinking the rule should be +1 biggest die you have/per 5 above the AC.

Thing is, I wanted to minimize the math involved, and i also consider making it +1die/10 AC. With exploding damage dice, every additional die can be really consequential. Death to arcane casters.
If that's what you want, that's what you'll get.

I think the main problem is that there are a bunch of monsters, particularly at higher CR's, that have very high hit bonuses. Yes.

PCs who are not focused on AC will generally have between 15 and 19 AC for their whole careers. And they will get chewed up with this rule as Tier levels increase. Death to arcane casters. [/quote] Nice example.

I don't think that having 30% chances to get critted against a CR 10 enemy when you're in plate armor with a shield is an enjoyable prospect. bingo.

Crits generally help monsters more than PCs, unless the PC is specifically built for crits.
This also.

In 2e, with the Combat and Tactics supplement, crits became "18 or higher on the dice, and beat the AC by 5 or more." So, if you can only hit on a 20, you won't crit, but if you can hit on a 10, you still need at least an 18 on the die.

Crits went to people with better skills. Did that include weapons mastery bonuses, or am I thinking about 1e Unearthed Arcana?

[Cikomyr2]

Death to arcane casters.
If that's what you want, that's what you'll get.


You say that like its a bad thing.

Omg, casters are becoming glass cannons again and we have to take care our most vulnerable members are protected from harm.

Oh noooes what will we do.

[LibraryOgre]

Did that include weapons mastery bonuses, or am I thinking about 1e Unearthed Arcana?
Flat, natural, die roll.

So, let's say you have a ThAC0 of 10, and your opponent convenient has an AC of 0. Between strength, weapon specialization, and magic weapons, you have a +4 to hit.

If the die shows 6-17, you will score a normal hit... 6+4 = 10 - 10 ThAC0 = Hits AC 0.
If the die shows 18, 19, or 20, you score a critical.

The die showing 17 will give you a total of 21, but it won't be a natural roll, so you won't crit.

Now, let's say your buddy has a ThAC0 of 20, but a +6 to hit (+2 from 18 Dex, +2 from point blank range with a specialized bow, +1 from being an elf, +1 from a magic bow). He can only hit an AC of 0 when his total is 20; with a +6, the die will need to be 14 or higher. If he rolls an 18, his total is 24... he does not crit, because he needed 5 higher (25 or more) than the total necessary to hit.

In short, you never have more than a 15% chance to critical, and you only have that if you've got a good bonus above the ThAC0.

[Unoriginal]

You say that like its a bad thing.

Omg, casters are becoming glass cannons again and we have to take care our most vulnerable members are protected from harm.

Oh noooes what will we do.

That would imply the rest would be able to protect them from harm.

Not happening with that houserule.

[Leon]

Hope you like Exploding PCs because that's what is going to happen. Change like this is significant in favor of the things the PCs fight thru volume of attacks. Not that some lethality in the bubble wrapped world 5e would be bad

[Theodoxus]

I could see using something like that on the player side. So, a nat20 is auto hit but not necessarily crit, and AC+X is a crit.

I'd probably do something different for the monster side of the equation. Either keep it per the book, or perhaps grant all armor a natural Damage Reduction equal to their [AC Bonus - 10]. So, Plate grants 8 DR; Padded grants 1. Then a crit bypasses this native DR of armor - I'll let others decide if dice should also be doubled, or crit just bypasses DR with no additional damage.

Magic should also increase the DR (so +2 Plate is DR 10. Mage Armor is DR 3). I don't think shields should be included in the calculation, though I do like the idea of sacrificing a shield to negate a crit (I think that's from 13th Age?). HAM isn't bypassed though - except by magical attacks, obviously. Feats shouldn't be easily negated by base homebrew rules. :smallbiggrin:

[Rynjin]

You would want to implement a full "degrees of success/failure" system for this, like Savage Worlds or Mutants and Masterminds. It's fairly hard to convert an existing system to use this because it creates its own imbalances when you try to backport it to an existing one; this is part of why most spells feel so worthless in Pathfinder 2e. They tried to keep the same spell effects as 1e but shift them down based on degrees of failure...but have the same effects they used to have on a "normal success" be reserved for a critical success.

Not much point in casting a Fireball when ANY enemy can save for none.

[Cikomyr2]

Hope you like Exploding PCs because that's what is going to happen. Change like this is significant in favor of the things the PCs fight thru volume of attacks. Not that some lethality in the bubble wrapped world 5e would be bad

Yhea, so the PCs wouldnt just assume fighting 20 low level soldiers to be a walk in the park.

Its just a different way to engage threats. Everyone is more fragile, people can die of a single lucky sword stroke or arrow. Players may consider combat to be a thing to avoid rather than "one of ten encounter balanced for a proper adventuring day".

But i am not saying ***my*** play sensibilities are the best. I just dislike certain aspect of dnd where hp inflation make battles a bit chonky and extended, so exploding dice would help increase the swings and make fights dramatic except "something balanced to be faced 10 times"

[Rynjin]

I think it's also worth noting that there's a reason that competent RPGs which use a degrees of success system also have fundamentally different ways of "dealing damage" than D&D/Pathfinder do. Most of these systems have an attack roll, whereupon the defending player or enemy makes a saving throw to avoid damage. For everything, even standard melee attacks.

This inherently eliminates some of the swinginess.

[Skrum]

PCs who are not focused on AC will generally have between 15 and 19 AC for their whole careers.

PCs who are focused on AC will generally have between 20 and 23.



In my experience, EVERY character has AC in the low to mid 20's (once reactions like shield are factored in). Weird table....maybe? But we actually have rules *against* the stacking of certain benefits: like using a ring of protection and +1 armor at the same time. And still, virtually every character, except barbarians, has 20+ AC (or the ability to raise it that high as needed).

This isn't high end optimization. It's just basic stuff. IMO, if you're rolling with 16 AC and you're not a barb (or a ranged character that can avoid being attacked at all)... Lol that's on you.

[Amechra]

While people are focusing on the PC side of things... keep in mind that monster AC tends to be surprisingly low.

Like, let's say that the party is fighting a Knight (which have unusually high AC for a CR 3 creature). They have an AC of 18 (20 when parrying), which might sound high... but it means that someone with a +5 to hit is going to crit on an 18+ (20 if they choose to parry). And, again, that's against an enemy with high AC. A Winter Wolf has ~50% more HP than the Knight in order to compensate for having an AC of 13 — with this rule in play, someone with a +6 to hit would crit on a 13+ — you're about as likely to crit them as you are to hit normally!

Is this a bad thing? I dunno! All I know is that it definitely changes up the combat math — the Winter Wolf goes from needing +50% HP to make up for having lower AC to needing +100% HP, so a lot of "meatbag" monsters are going to suddenly be much more fragile than they are historically.

[LudicSavant]

So instead of an attacker being equally likely to crit a robed wizard as a plated fighter, it's much harder to crit the fighter.

The number doesn't have to be 5 either; it could be/probably should higher. Maybe 7?

Personally, I don't like the extra math involved and having to remember essentially two AC numbers, but I do like the base math - make having more armor worth more, as well as make boosting your attack roll that much better.

Robed Wizards have Shield. The real victims are going to be those meat sack monsters with like 11 AC.

Also, it's easier to boost a single attack's accuracy than multiple, so it'll be pretty easy to, say, make even something as basic as a (tier 3) Fire Bolt crit for ~+17 damage.

Also makes stuff like Bless and Peace Cleric Bond and Bardic Inspiration and so forth generate crits in addition to everything else.

[Unoriginal]

In my experience, EVERY character has AC in the low to mid 20's (once reactions like shield are factored in). Weird table....maybe?

As was established in the past, your table is very unusual, yes.




But we actually have rules *against* the stacking of certain benefits: like using a ring of protection and +1 armor at the same time. And still, virtually every character, except barbarians, has 20+ AC (or the ability to raise it that high as needed).

This isn't high end optimization. It's just basic stuff. IMO, if you're rolling with 16 AC and you're not a barb (or a ranged character that can avoid being attacked at all)... Lol that's on you.

Having more than 20 AC is definitively optimization. Perhaps not high-end, but optimization still.

I guess your table doesn't have any DEX-based character? Or everyone got magic armor early on?

Also, ranged characters can't "avoid being attacked at all", usually.


While people are focusing on the PC side of things... keep in mind that monster AC tends to be surprisingly low.

Like, let's say that the party is fighting a Knight (which have unusually high AC for a CR 3 creature). They have an AC of 18 (20 when parrying), which might sound high... but it means that someone with a +5 to hit is going to crit on an 18+ (20 if they choose to parry). And, again, that's against an enemy with high AC. A Winter Wolf has ~50% more HP than the Knight in order to compensate for having an AC of 13 — with this rule in play, someone with a +6 to hit would crit on a 13+ — you're about as likely to crit them as you are to hit normally!

Is this a bad thing? I dunno! All I know is that it definitely changes up the combat math — the Winter Wolf goes from needing +50% HP to make up for having lower AC to needing +100% HP, so a lot of "meatbag" monsters are going to suddenly be much more fragile than they are historically.

Also true.

[Skrum]

Having more than 20 AC is definitively optimization. Perhaps not high-end, but optimization still.

Taking the defensive fighting style, and then getting a +1 shield around level 6 or 7? That's 22 right there, with plate. Isn't that just...basic?



I guess your table doesn't have any DEX-based character? Or everyone got magic armor early on?

A few. Two bladesingers (each with 20ish AC when singing, plus shield). A couple of rogues, who have less AC - but they stay pretty far range. Not to say they don't get attacked at all, but they certainly get attacked a lot less - being 50, 60, 70 ft away will do that.



Also, ranged characters can't "avoid being attacked at all", usually.


No they can't - but they can mitigate a lot. If a melee character is gonna get swung on 10 times, and there's a 20% chance they get hit with each attack, a ranged character with a 50% chance of getting hit can equal out to the same overall mitigation by "not being there" for 6 of the 10 hits. Frankly, that sounds about accurate. A melee character gets attacked 5 times for every 2 times a ranged character does.

[Unoriginal]

Taking the defensive fighting style, and then getting a +1 shield around level 6 or 7? That's 22 right there, with plate. Isn't that just...basic?

1) Getting a specific magic item is never "just basic".

2) Having both the fighting style and access to plate is limited to Fighters and Paladins, unless a feat is spent.

3) Going shield + Defense fighting style is certainly possible... but it is definitively focusing on AC rather than something else. A PC could prefer Great Weapon Fighting and a greatsword, for example.

The point is that you have to commit to have that king of AC.



A few. Two bladesingers (each with 20ish AC when singing, plus shield). A couple of rogues, who have less AC - but they stay pretty far range. Not to say they don't get attacked at all, but they certainly get attacked a lot less - being 50, 60, 70 ft away will do that.

That requires having a battlefield that big, though




No they can't - but they can mitigate a lot. If a melee character is gonna get swung on 10 times, and there's a 20% chance they get hit with each attack, a ranged character with a 50% chance of getting hit can equal out to the same overall mitigation by "not being there" for 6 of the 10 hits. Frankly, that sounds about accurate. A melee character gets attacked 5 times for every 2 times a ranged character does.

So you don't face a lot of foes with ranged options?

[Skrum]

1) Getting a specific magic item is never "just basic".

2) Having both the fighting style and access to plate is limited to Fighters and Paladins, unless a feat is spent.

and most clerics. That adds up to a lot of ways to get heavy armor, for a lot of different builds



3) Going shield + Defense fighting style is certainly possible... but it is definitively focusing on AC rather than something else. A PC could prefer Great Weapon Fighting and a greatsword, for example.

There's several people who use GWM - but they're barbs that have resistance, and then there's one eldritch knight that has shield.



The point is that you have to commit to have that king of AC.

Yeah but the game barely rewards *not* going sword and board. So...why wouldn't you use a shield? And heavy armor is quite easy to get, even for spellcasters. Maybe I really am overestimating the average player's optimization? But to me, "hey I'm going to get hit a lot, I should probably boost my AC" just seems so incredibly basic.



So you don't face a lot of foes with ranged options?

NPC's ranged options are usually worse than their melee ones. Not always, obviously, but often. Even a giant - yes their boulder hits hard, but they can only throw one boulder. As opposed to 2 melee swings. The most dangerous ranged attacks players face are spells, which is a whole different thing - and it just so happens that having a nice dex save is nice against a decent amount of ranged threats.

There's also a slight differences in going down when at range vs being in melee. A character that gets dropped by a ranged attack but is still not in the main skirmish is protected to a degree - only melee attacks are at advantage and auto-crits. Subsequent ranged attacks against the downed player will actually be at DISadvantage. The guy who dropped in the thick of it? Depending on what the enemy is and the initiative order, there might not even be a chance to cast healing word.

[JNAProductions]

and most clerics. That adds up to a lot of ways to get heavy armor, for a lot of different builds

There's several people who use GWM - but they're barbs that have resistance, and then there's one eldritch knight that has shield.

Yeah but the game barely rewards *not* going sword and board. So...why wouldn't you use a shield? And heavy armor is quite easy to get, even for spellcasters. Maybe I really am overestimating the average player's optimization? But to me, "hey I'm going to get hit a lot, I should probably boost my AC" just seems so incredibly basic.

NPC's ranged options are usually worse than their melee ones. Not always, obviously, but often. Even a giant - yes their boulder hits hard, but they can only throw one boulder. As opposed to 2 melee swings. The most dangerous ranged attacks players face are spells, which is a whole different thing - and it just so happens that having a nice dex save is nice against a decent amount of ranged threats.

There's also a slight differences in going down when at range vs being in melee. A character that gets dropped by a ranged attack but is still not in the main skirmish is protected to a degree - only melee attacks are at advantage and auto-crits. Subsequent ranged attacks against the downed player will actually be at DISadvantage. The guy who dropped in the thick of it? Depending on what the enemy is and the initiative order, there might not even be a chance to cast healing word.

Clerics have to drop a feat on Defensive Fighting Style at a minimum.
They can have to drop up to three feats to get AC 21-one for Heavy Armor, one for proficiency in a Martial Weapon, one for the Defensive Fighting Style.

And if you have players that like to crank the optimization up (along with DMing that allows for easy access to specific magic items) against bog-standard monsters, it really shouldn't be that difficult.
Plus, if you make custom monsters, it's trivial to make them a competent ranged force.

Edit: Addressing the OP...

I would advise against it. Crits are fun to get, not so much to receive. And offensive increases across the board have a much higher chance of biting the players in the butt than enemies-enemies are (generally) expected to go down. Players are (again, generally) not expected to die.

[Skrum]

Clerics have to drop a feat on Defensive Fighting Style at a minimum.
They can have to drop up to three feats to get AC 21-one for Heavy Armor, one for proficiency in a Martial Weapon, one for the Defensive Fighting Style.


C'mon, I'm not talking about a cleric literally becoming a fighter. I'm talking about many cleric types granting shield and heavy armor prof (as an ability, weirdly, which makes it very available for dips). Those proficiencies alone add up to 20 AC, and that's before magic items, shield of faith, any of a multitude of ways to get shield as a spell, etc.



Edit: Addressing the OP...

I would advise against it. Crits are fun to get, not so much to receive. And offensive increases across the board have a much higher chance of biting the players in the butt than enemies-enemies are (generally) expected to go down. Players are (again, generally) not expected to die.


Maybe. But I think the game could use to be a bit more dangerous.

[Psyren]

Not that some lethality in the bubble wrapped world 5e would be bad



Maybe. But I think the game could use to be a bit more dangerous.

Have y'all tried, like... making your fights harder? Maybe add a CR or three? Seems a lot simpler than rewriting the rules.

[Skrum]

Have y'all tried, like... making your fights harder? Maybe add a CR or three? Seems a lot simpler than rewriting the rules.

I have a lot of different answers to that.

But I'll focus on this: monsters that are supposed to be dangerous - think bruiser types - well they just kinda aren't. Dragons are a joke, outside their breath weapon. Giants come the closest, but only relative to the weak 5e landscape. They're not actually all that threatening, even if fought toe to toe.

If a monster only has a 50% chance to hit - and in practice, it's usually A LOT less than that - big numbers don't turn into all that much damage. They just whiff a bunch, maybe land one hit that does 20-30 damage, and then they die. I'm describing giants, tbc. It should be scary! But it's just not.

[Psyren]

I have a lot of different answers to that.

But I'll focus on this: monsters that are supposed to be dangerous - think bruiser types - well they just kinda aren't. Dragons are a joke, outside their breath weapon. Giants come the closest, but only relative to the weak 5e landscape. They're not actually all that threatening, even if fought toe to toe.

If a monster only has a 50% chance to hit - and in practice, it's usually A LOT less than that - big numbers don't turn into all that much damage. They just whiff a bunch, maybe land one hit that does 20-30 damage, and then they die. I'm describing giants, tbc. It should be scary! But it's just not.

That still seems easily solvable though. If your players are steamrolling the giants and dragons you're using, use tougher ones, like older dragons. Or if you want to stick the 'weaker' ones, power them up with buffs/consumables. Or favorable terrain for the giants. Or just increase stats like their chance to hit directly etc.

[RSP]

That still seems easily solvable though. If your players are steamrolling the giants and dragons you're using, use tougher ones, like older dragons. Or if you want to stick the 'weaker' ones, power them up with buffs/consumables. Or favorable terrain for the giants. Or just increase stats like their chance to hit directly etc.

Enemy action economy helps as well. Worried about that dragon getting steamrolled? How about two dragons and some minions?

[Unoriginal]

C'mon, I'm not talking about a cleric literally becoming a fighter. I'm talking about many cleric types granting shield and heavy armor prof

What was being discussed was who has access to plate and the Defense fighting style.

[Skrum]

What was being discussed was who has access to plate and the Defense fighting style.

I was simply making the point that getting 20 base AC is *trivial.* Ergo, if your character is walking around with 15, 16 AC, that's practically anti-optimization.

[LibraryOgre]

While people are focusing on the PC side of things... keep in mind that monster AC tends to be surprisingly low.

Like, let's say that the party is fighting a Knight (which have unusually high AC for a CR 3 creature). They have an AC of 18 (20 when parrying), which might sound high... but it means that someone with a +5 to hit is going to crit on an 18+ (20 if they choose to parry). And, again, that's against an enemy with high AC. A Winter Wolf has ~50% more HP than the Knight in order to compensate for having an AC of 13 — with this rule in play, someone with a +6 to hit would crit on a 13+ — you're about as likely to crit them as you are to hit normally!

Is this a bad thing? I dunno! All I know is that it definitely changes up the combat math — the Winter Wolf goes from needing +50% HP to make up for having lower AC to needing +100% HP, so a lot of "meatbag" monsters are going to suddenly be much more fragile than they are historically.

I feel I should point you to your signature. :biggrin:

[Unoriginal]

I was simply making the point that getting 20 base AC is *trivial.* Ergo, if your character is walking around with 15, 16 AC, that's practically anti-optimization.

Getting 20 AC is an option available to several builds, that does not make it *trivial*.

To get 20 AC, you need to commit, one way or another.

You need 15 STR (or a racial perk that removes the need for that) + having a class/subclass with heavy armor and shield proficienmcy + forgoing two-handed weapons + having access to plate mail, which is worth 1500gp, by either finding it, looting it or buying it. Or you need to be a Monk or Barbarian with 20 in two stats/18 in two stats (or equivalent) and a specific magic item. Or you need other specific magic items. Or you need to spend limited-per-rest ressources.

It's unlikely a PC will have 15-16, true, but most builds hover around 17-18 their whole career.

[Kane0]

I was simply making the point that getting 20 base AC is *trivial.* Ergo, if your character is walking around with 15, 16 AC, that's practically anti-optimization.

Im playing a level 6 Armorer Artificer, still at AC 19 using Repulsion Shield thanks to not having plate (yet). No fighting style or shield spell for me, and i'm considered the party's second tank next to the fighter with protection style and Heavy Armor Master (who does have plate but no magic gear).

As has been established, your table is not quite the norm.

[JNAProductions]

Also, Skrum-how often does the party need to sneak around?
Heavy armor is real bad for that. Especially if you combine heavy armor with low dexterity.

[OvisCaedo]

Degrees of success can be neat, but I think they're just not a good fit for 5e's bounded accuracy shtick.

[LibraryOgre]

Degrees of success can be neat, but I think they're just not a good fit for 5e's bounded accuracy shtick.

I think 4e's MM can provide a roadmap for that, however... DC 10 gives you X, DC 15 gives you X+Y, and DC 20 gives you X+Y+Z.

[Skrum]

Also, Skrum-how often does the party need to sneak around?
Heavy armor is real bad for that. Especially if you combine heavy armor with low dexterity.

One of my characters at this table, ages ago at this point, said "stealth is for peasants." It's become a motto at the table lol. The character has long since retired, the saying is still here.

Sneaking doesn't often come up. And when it does, we use the group stealth rules. Or someone has pass without trace. Point is, my general feeling is that unless the game is extremely stealth-based, the penalty to stealth just isn't that big of a factor.

[Skrum]

Getting 20 AC is an option available to several builds, that does not make it *trivial*.

To get 20 AC, you need to commit, one way or another.

You need 15 STR (or a racial perk that removes the need for that) + having a class/subclass with heavy armor and shield proficienmcy + forgoing two-handed weapons + having access to plate mail, which is worth 1500gp, by either finding it, looting it or buying it. Or you need to be a Monk or Barbarian with 20 in two stats/18 in two stats (or equivalent) and a specific magic item. Or you need other specific magic items. Or you need to spend limited-per-rest ressources.

It's unlikely a PC will have 15-16, true, but most builds hover around 17-18 their whole career.

Sorry I don't buy it lol. Several classes get native access; several others can easily dip to get it. Barb has their own special defenses that can mostly make up for it. Yes it's "choices." But I simply must assume a player is generally going to make choices that make their character good at what they're supposed to do as opposed to the opposite of that.

Re: getting plate armor
Yeah if the DM is treating mundane plate armor as some special thing that characters can't assume they'll have access to by level 5, certainly by 6, that's like a huge red flag for me. I'd be deeply hesitant to play at that table, until they convinced me they're actually aware of what they're doing in regards to equipment and the functionality of the classes that rely on it.

[Kane0]

Re: getting plate armor
Yeah if the DM is treating mundane plate armor as some special thing that characters can't assume they'll have access to by level 5, certainly by 6, that's like a huge red flag for me. I'd be deeply hesitant to play at that table, until they convinced me they're actually aware of what they're doing in regards to equipment and the functionality of the classes that rely on it.

Can you also buy an infinite supply of healing potions as long as you have at least 50gp?

[sithlordnergal]

Can you also buy an infinite supply of healing potions as long as you have at least 50gp?

I mean, there's a bit of a difference between infinite healing potions, and 4 to 5 suits of Plate Armor. I'd expect a few larger cities to have at least 3 sets, or someone you can commission a set for.

[Kane0]

As mentioned i'm a level 6 armorer artificer, and given the adventure we are playing through is Princes of the Apocalypse theres no city close by and I am the best blacksmith in town. But i'm busy adventuring, so the local smithy has already been commissioned on that fullplate job and is still a week or two away from completion of my set after we luckily found and only had to modify to fit the other two party members (nature cleric and fighter).

My point is, lacking fullplate by level X isnt necessarily a huge red flag for me, because it depends a lot on the table, group and adventure.

Unrelated, I still hate DMG Flanking. That is kicking our asses and I think the original idea in this thread would only compound that.

[Unoriginal]

I mean, there's a bit of a difference between infinite healing potions, and 4 to 5 suits of Plate Armor. I'd expect a few larger cities to have at least 3 sets, or someone you can commission a set for.

One plate armor costs the equivalent of 30 healing potions, and can take close to a year to make.

Also there is no guarantee a campaign even goes in any larger city.



Unrelated, I still hate DMG Flanking.

It is on my "I'll never use that rule" list.


But I simply must assume a player is generally going to make choices that make their character good at what they're supposed to do as opposed to the opposite of that.

Your condescension is noted.

I hope you never have anyone wanting to try a Greatsword Paladin or Glaive Ranger at your table. For their sake.



Re: getting plate armor
Yeah if the DM is treating mundane plate armor as some special thing that characters can't assume they'll have access to by level 5, certainly by 6, that's like a huge red flag for me.

If that's a red flag for you, the reason why you think monsters aren't challenging enough is obvious

[Skrum]

Wearing plate armor is a class feature that certain classes get. Unlike most class features that classes just get to use, no questions asked, this requires the character to spend further gold to access. Somehow, that works out to be "well it's also totally fine for the DM to just deny because realism (or something)."

Play how you want to play, obviously. But unless other classes are also being denied, oh I don't know, casting their 3rd level spells in a consistent effort to create a gritty, hard scrabble game, I'm going to be deeply concerned that that DM doesn't actually know what they're messing with.

===========

But I think we've gotten far afield here...

The idea behind my OP was to create a connection between being more likely to hit and more likely to crit. With normal crits, a character that hits on everything but a 1 crits at the same rate as a character that only hits with a 20. Little weird, no?

The likelihood of crits certainly rise, so if this rule were to be used, crit damage would probably have to be changed to strictly double weapon damage (as opposed to all dice of the attack).

[RSP]

So instead of an attacker being equally likely to crit a robed wizard as a plated fighter, it's much harder to crit the fighter.



Wearing plate armor is a class feature that certain classes get. Unlike most class features that classes just get to use, no questions asked, this requires the character to spend further gold to access. Somehow, that works out to be "well it's also totally fine for the DM to just deny because realism (or something)."

Play how you want to play, obviously. But unless other classes are also being denied, oh I don't know, casting their 3rd level spells in a consistent effort to create a gritty, hard scrabble game, I'm going to be deeply concerned that that DM doesn't actually know what they're messing with.

===========

But I think we've gotten far afield here...

The idea behind my OP was to create a connection between being more likely to hit and more likely to crit. With normal crits, a character that hits on everything but a 1 crits at the same rate as a character that only hits with a 20. Little weird, no?

The likelihood of crits certainly rise, so if this rule were to be used, crit damage would probably have to be changed to strictly double weapon damage (as opposed to all dice of the attack).

Doesn’t your OP cite “realism” though? You specifically started off your entire argument with comparing a full plate fighter to a robed wizard. Isn’t that “because realism” would say it’s easier to critically hit an in armored opponent?

[Unoriginal]

Wearing plate armor is a class feature that certain classes get. Unlike most class features that classes just get to use, no questions asked, this requires the character to spend further gold to access. Somehow, that works out to be "well it's also totally fine for the DM to just deny because realism (or something)."

Play how you want to play, obviously. But unless other classes are also being denied, oh I don't know, casting their 3rd level spells in a consistent effort to create a gritty, hard scrabble game, I'm going to be deeply concerned that that DM doesn't actually know what they're messing with.

Do PCs have unlimited access to diamonds and other costly spell components, at your table?

[Witty Username]

Do PCs have unlimited access to diamonds and other costly spell components, at your table?

How many spells do you actually use that have costly material components in in tier 1?
Oh no, what will I ever do without chromatic orb...

I actually did the math on this one comparing a dex and strength build back in the day.

Studded leather, a melee weapon, a bow, a shield, a back up weapon for fun, a sea of arrorws, and a pair of diamond earrings for the party cleric.

And the strength fighter couldn't even afford plate yet, let alone a weapon to go with it.

And for this time it is not uncommon for the dex build to have better AC than the strength build.
Edit: For quick numbers, the average starting gold of a fighter is about 120 gp,
A dex build: Studded leather, sheild, rapier, shortbow, Arrows (100) and something like 10gp left over
A strength build: chainmail, longsword, shield, and to cover the 10 gp remaining we are limited to 20 Javelins or 10 spears.

Weight:
Dex -27 ibs, threshold likely 120 lbs. W/variant 40
Str - 94 ibs (using spears as weight is less), threshold 240 lbs. W/variant threshold 80

So if you use variant encumbrance strength build can't even use this gear effectively yet.

Upgrades and costs:
Dex, longbow or hand crossbow. Costs 50-75 gp. Heavy crossbow and hand crossbow as worst case for 125 gp, armor is already the best we got.
Str, just splint costs 200 gp, and plate is another 1,500 gp. And that ultimately gets you a grand total of 1 point of AC.

[Unoriginal]

How many spells do you actually use that have costly material components in in tier 1?
Oh no, what will I ever do without chromatic orb...

Level 5-6 isn't tier 1.

If not having plate by level 6 is a red flag, as Skrum thinks, then I don't see why lacking 1500gp of diamond to let the Cleric Revivify 5 dead PCs isn't one.

Also plate armor is more expensive than most Uncommon magic items, so why isn't "doesn't have the Uncommon magic item you want at level 6" a red flag?

[Amechra]

I feel I should point you to your signature. :biggrin:

Math that took me a few minutes to napkin up hardly counts. :tongue:

Though, to indulge in a little bit of nitty-gritty that's a bit off topic... I have a hunch that Half-Plate and Plate are priced the way they are because they're supposed to be the big thing your party pools cash for before you start worrying about the Diamond Fund. This seems especially clear to me with Plate, since a "traditional" party is pretty likely to only have one person who can make good use of Plate, and it's going to be in the party's best interests to improve their AC (since they're probably a frontliner whose job it is to get smacked by monsters).

The "base" AC for a party without magic items appears to have been initially balanced around being around 17 past Tier 2, with AC above that being the purview of dedicated frontline people. Consider:



Light armor users soft-cap at 17 AC (Studded Leather + 20 Dex)
A lazy medium armor user (aka they don't upgrade past Scale and leave their Dex at 13) ends up with a 17 AC with a shield.
A lazy heavy armor user (aka they don't upgrade past Chain Mail and leave their Strength at 13) ends up with a 16 AC without a shield, 18 AC with one.
A Mage Armor + Shield user that invested in having a 13/14 Dex has a base AC of 14-15 and a Shield AC of 19-20. Setting 17 as the "base" AC falls squarely in the middle of that range.


In that context, using the party funds to get the party Fighter to the heady heights of 21 AC, a full four points above the average? Ooh yeah, that's worth it.

[Kane0]

Level 5-6 isn't tier 1.

If not having plate by level 6 is a red flag, as Skrum thinks, then I don't see why lacking 1500gp of diamond to let the Cleric Revivify 5 dead PCs isn't one.

Also plate armor is more expensive than most Uncommon magic items, so why isn't "doesn't have the Uncommon magic item you want at level 6" a red flag?

Yeah i also didnt have a diamond big enough for a revivify which required some shenanigans from the DM, but we did get a driftglobe and wand of magic missiles at level 2, a +1 dagger at level 3 and a half dozen scrolls at level 4.

[Skrum]

Level 5-6 isn't tier 1.

If not having plate by level 6 is a red flag, as Skrum thinks, then I don't see why lacking 1500gp of diamond to let the Cleric Revivify 5 dead PCs isn't one.

Also plate armor is more expensive than most Uncommon magic items, so why isn't "doesn't have the Uncommon magic item you want at level 6" a red flag?

If fireball, hypnotic pattern, spirit guardians, misty step, counterspell, and banishment all had expensive components that the DM gatekeeped as hard as the plate armor, than you have an argument. But short of that....

For the record, I didn't come to this idea out of a desire to make the game more deadly to characters with low AC. I specifically like it because I like that being more likely to hit means a higher chance to crit - there's an elegance there that warms my little game theorist heart.

Separately, I ALSO think the game would benefit from a little more deadliness - but that wasn't my primary goal.

[Unoriginal]

Math that took me a few minutes to napkin up hardly counts. :tongue:

Though, to indulge in a little bit of nitty-gritty that's a bit off topic... I have a hunch that Half-Plate and Plate are priced the way they are because they're supposed to be the big thing your party pools cash for before you start worrying about the Diamond Fund. This seems especially clear to me with Plate, since a "traditional" party is pretty likely to only have one person who can make good use of Plate, and it's going to be in the party's best interests to improve their AC (since they're probably a frontliner whose job it is to get smacked by monsters).

The "base" AC for a party without magic items appears to have been initially balanced around being around 17 past Tier 2, with AC above that being the purview of dedicated frontline people. Consider:



Light armor users soft-cap at 17 AC (Studded Leather + 20 Dex)
A lazy medium armor user (aka they don't upgrade past Scale and leave their Dex at 13) ends up with a 17 AC with a shield.
A lazy heavy armor user (aka they don't upgrade past Chain Mail and leave their Strength at 13) ends up with a 16 AC without a shield, 18 AC with one.
A Mage Armor + Shield user that invested in having a 13/14 Dex has a base AC of 14-15 and a Shield AC of 19-20. Setting 17 as the "base" AC falls squarely in the middle of that range.


In that context, using the party funds to get the party Fighter to the heady heights of 21 AC, a full four points above the average? Ooh yeah, that's worth it.


Indeed.

Meaning that having 3-5 PCs in full plate at lvl 5, considering it a red flag regarding if they haven't gotten plate by lvl 6, and saying that those PCs' player are doing the opposite of "mak choices that make their character good at what they're supposed to do" if they don't have at least 20 AC is [I]definitively outside the usual.

And that it's not surprising that such a group doesn't find the monsters challenging.



For the record, I didn't come to this idea out of a desire to make the game more deadly to characters with low AC. I specifically like it because I like that being more likely to hit means a higher chance to crit - there's an elegance there that warms my little game theorist heart.

Separately, I ALSO think the game would benefit from a little more deadliness - but that wasn't my primary goal.

Those two goals are opposite to each other, though.

As pointed out, low-AC monsters are much more common than low-AC PCs, so in practice what it'll do is make PCs have around 25% crit chances on enemies that have low AC but big HPs very quickly. Meaning the game will be less deadly for the PCs.

[JNAProductions]

If fireball, hypnotic pattern, spirit guardians, misty step, counterspell, and banishment all had expensive components that the DM gatekeeped as hard as the plate armor, than you have an argument. But short of that....

For the record, I didn't come to this idea out of a desire to make the game more deadly to characters with low AC. I specifically like it because I like that being more likely to hit means a higher chance to crit - there's an elegance there that warms my little game theorist heart.

Separately, I ALSO think the game would benefit from a little more deadliness - but that wasn't my primary goal.

The game doesn't expect PCs to have massive AC values.
Chain is fine in Tier One. Splint is fine in Tier Two. Full Plate is also fine, but it's not a big deal if you're higher level before you get it.

Also, the bit about pooling resources-if the party has 2,000 GP by level four, it's often a good investment to get Full Plate for one member. The remaining 500 GP can be spent on things like Studded Leather, Healing Potions, miscellaneous travelling supplies...
But the entire party doesn't need Full Plate.

[Skrum]

The game doesn't expect PCs to have massive AC values.
Chain is fine in Tier One. Splint is fine in Tier Two. Full Plate is also fine, but it's not a big deal if you're higher level before you get it.


I really question what this means - "expects." Bladesinger will have very high AC essentially incidentally. Forge cleric, same. Armorer artificer. Eldritch knight, if the player opts to build up their AC. The tools are there to get AC values that are quite high, and the game incentivizes having as high an AC value as you can get by making AC a very good defense.




Also, the bit about pooling resources-if the party has 2,000 GP by level four, it's often a good investment to get Full Plate for one member. The remaining 500 GP can be spent on things like Studded Leather, Healing Potions, miscellaneous travelling supplies...
But the entire party doesn't need Full Plate.

You and I are clearly playing very different games

[Goobahfish]

So instead of an attacker being equally likely to crit a robed wizard as a plated fighter, it's much harder to crit the fighter.

The number doesn't have to be 5 either; it could be/probably should higher. Maybe 7?

Personally, I don't like the extra math involved and having to remember essentially two AC numbers, but I do like the base math - make having more armor worth more, as well as make boosting your attack roll that much better.

This depends on what the intended design goal is.
Some questions:

#1: Are critical hits too infrequent?
#2: Is this a verisimilitude issue (chance to hit goes up, but criticals stay the same)?

In 3.5, there was the concept of 'confirming a critical hit'. I.e., a 20 was an auto-hit, but you needed to roll again to confirm the critical hit nature of the attack. This was removed... presumably because it slowed down gameplay and was perhaps a little anti-climactic?

The maths was solid though. Criticals were more likely for characters with high to-hit chances and weapons were coded with 19-20 crit modifiers or x3 crit results (martial weapons) as a base.

PF2 has a 10+AC crit threshold. This is an interesting design choice.

---

Some potential traps. As mentioned above, creatures aren't really balanced around this rule. Some creatures with high to-hit are now considerably more powerful as they will do double damage regularly. It does give primacy to to-hit rolls. Feats like GWM/SS will actually be nerfed as taking -5 to-hit is a -25% crit chance (at least potentially). It actually makes 'power-attack'-like feats far less viable.

It will slow down gameplay. Now, a 16 to hit... requires a mental calculation whereas in general you 'know it is a hit'. Then resolving multiple hits will be a bit of a pain.

[Witty Username]

In that context, using the party funds to get the party Fighter to the heady heights of 21 AC, a full four points above the average? Ooh yeah, that's worth it.

I think it is a bit of a stretch to say a 6th level party shouldn't be able to afford 1 suit of plate though.
--
Crit rules are crit rules. This does generally make combat more dangerous.

A note that while monsters tend to have lower AC, crits against monsters are much less likely to affect the outcome. Crits on PCs on the other hand can have disruptive effects on an encounter as they can turn a likely victory into setbacks, death and loss.

Is 20 still a crit? If not, then that would give heavy armor practical immunity to crits from low CR monsters. Which I don't think is necessary.

[Amechra]

I think it is a bit of a stretch to say a 6th level party shouldn't be able to afford 1 suit of plate though.

I think the argument in this thread is about whether or not a 6th level party should be able to afford multiple suits of plate, which is a separate kettle of fish.

Granted, the expectations around money are... screwy... in 5e. If you calculate how much money you're supposed to have in 5e based off of what the game suggests vis-a-vis treasure hoards (like this (https://www.reddit.com/r/DnDBehindTheScreen/comments/9lewra/5e_wealth_by_level_hoard_tables/)), you're apparently supposed to go from "the party can afford a single suit of plate" at levels 5 to "everyone can individually buy a suit of plate and have enough cash left over for two 500gp diamonds for resurrection purposes, with cash to spare" at 6th level.

Personally, I'm going to chalk up the mismatch between "how much money should you have?" and "how much do things cost" as another case of the development team not being entirely on the same page, kinda like how hand crossbows are Light.

[Witty Username]

Agree on money being weird (XP for gold seems to help my game some, but I don't remember if that is in the DMG).

I mostly was noticing a disconnect, Skrum seams to be pushing on can't get, and Unoriginal that plate shouldn't be 'Free' which are two different thresholds.

I don't think I have had a game where multiple players wanted plate at the same time, so in practice I am more leaning Skrum.

[Rerem115]

With the current system math, it would make easy fights easier (party DPR quickly focusing down threats), and hard fights even more lethal (already strong monsters rolling well and downing one or more people in a single round). It favors classes with access to shield, and a narrow, specific set of defense focused, AC stacking player options. This is to the detriment of anyone wanting to play a Monk, Barbarian (especially when elemental damage becomes common), most Rogues (especially melee), most Rangers (especially melee), Druids (especially Moon), and non-Hexblade Warlocks.

So, it's fine as long as everyone is fine with high PC turnover and the DM telling them to play a Bladesinger, Arcana Cleric, Eldritch Knight, S&B Hexadin, S&B Artificer, or an Arcane Trickster.

[Unoriginal]

I don't think I have had a game where multiple players wanted plate at the same time, so in practice I am more leaning Skrum.

Skrum is saying that every player with a melee character, except Barbarians and Bladesingers, should want plate at the same time, and that it is a red flag if the DM hasn't made sure they all get it by lvl 6, though.

[Witty Username]

Skrum is saying that every player with a melee character, except Barbarians and Bladesingers, should want plate at the same time, and that it is a red flag if the DM hasn't made sure they all get it by lvl 6, though.

You don't need heavy armor to get 20+ AC though. And the call was wanting good AC is universal, not necessarily heavy armor.

[Skrum]

This is to the detriment of anyone wanting to play a Monk, Barbarian (especially when elemental damage becomes common), most Rogues (especially melee), most Rangers (especially melee), Druids (especially Moon), and non-Hexblade Warlocks.

I am quite critical of these classes on exactly these grounds; they do not have the mechanics or abilities to hang in a more optimized, deadly game.

Except for druid; they might not have the raw AC, but they more than make up for it in having one of the biggest toolboxes in the game.



So, it's fine as long as everyone is fine with high PC turnover and the DM telling them to play a Bladesinger, Arcana Cleric, Eldritch Knight, S&B Hexadin, S&B Artificer, or an Arcane Trickster.

There are LOTS of ways to make a character with good defenses; it's not limited to these specific options.

[JNAProductions]

I am quite critical of these classes on exactly these grounds; they do not have the mechanics or abilities to hang in a more optimized, deadly game.

Except for druid; they might not have the raw AC, but they more than make up for it in having one of the biggest toolboxes in the game.

There are LOTS of ways to make a character with good defenses; it's not limited to these specific options.

Aren't you complaining that your games aren't deadly enough?

[Skrum]

Aren't you complaining that your games aren't deadly enough?

Yes! Lol.

The real answer is more complicated though, and it has to do with party balance. Let's consider this party: a TWF ranger, a wolf totem barb, an evocation wizard, and a ranged rogue.

Not a bad party, really. Light on healing perhaps, but they've got a lot of bases covered in terms of melee, ranged, AoE, skills, etc. AC-wise, they're in the 15-17 range; like this is where AC ends up if no one is paying attention to it. And the game works fine.

But. What if the ranger isn't a ranger; instead they're a vengeance hexasorcadin with the defensive fighting style. We can avoid quibbles about plate and agree that by level 8, this character is *gonna* have plate, and possibly even a +1 enhancement on their armor or shield. That means their base AC is 22. 24 if they use shield of faith. 29 if they then cast shield.

A monster with a +8 chance to hit has a mere 25% chance to hit if the paladin is using shield of faith. That drops to 5% if they shield. Conversely, that same monster has a 50% chance to hit an AC 17 ranger. If this monster does an average of 40 damage a round, that means the ranger will take 20 damage every round (on average), while the paladin would take as little as 2. 2 damage. Per round.

My point is that the game has the seeds of its own undoing. It takes exactly ONE person stacking AC - and tbc, it's easy to stack, and there's multiple paths to do so - and party balance starts falling apart. I have no doubt that the game runs fine if everyone agrees to a unilateral disarmament (the monsters aren't hitting any less hard! I say unilateral because the players are essentially "agreeing" to get hit a lot). But one player shows up with the "wrong" build, and suddenly there's A LOT of pressure for everyone to build in that direction.

Ideally-ideally, I would've liked the game to be a little more thoughtfully designed; breaking bounded accuracy with AC is particularly easy. I think a good systemic fix would 1) tone down AC stacking a bit, starting with the shield spell, 2) make AC less of a god stat (bring back Touch AC), and 3) spread the love around a little and boost the defenses of the classes that need it - monk and ranger foremost, but rogue as well.

[JNAProductions]

Yes! Lol.

The real answer is more complicated though, and it has to do with party balance. Let's consider this party: a TWF ranger, a wolf totem barb, an evocation wizard, and a ranged rogue.

Not a bad party, really. Light on healing perhaps, but they've got a lot of bases covered in terms of melee, ranged, AoE, skills, etc. AC-wise, they're in the 15-17 range; like this is where AC ends up if no one is paying attention to it. And the game works fine.

But. What if the ranger isn't a ranger; instead they're a vengeance hexasorcadin with the defensive fighting style. We can avoid quibbles about plate and agree that by level 8, this character is *gonna* have plate, and possibly even a +1 enhancement on their armor or shield. That means their base AC is 22. 24 if they use shield of faith. 29 if they then cast shield.

A monster with a +8 chance to hit has a mere 25% chance to hit if the paladin is using shield of faith. That drops to 5% if they shield. Conversely, that same monster has a 50% chance to hit an AC 17 ranger. If this monster does an average of 40 damage a round, that means the ranger will take 20 damage every round (on average), while the paladin would take as little as 2. 2 damage. Per round.

My point is that the game has the seeds of its own undoing. It takes exactly ONE person stacking AC - and tbc, it's easy to stack, and there's multiple paths to do so - and party balance starts falling apart. I have no doubt that the game runs fine if everyone agrees to a unilateral disarmament (the monsters aren't hitting any less hard! I say unilateral because the players are essentially "agreeing" to get hit a lot). But one player shows up with the "wrong" build, and suddenly there's A LOT of pressure for everyone to build in that direction.

Ideally-ideally, I would've liked the game to be a little more thoughtfully designed; breaking bounded accuracy with AC is particularly easy. I think a good systemic fix would 1) tone down AC stacking a bit, starting with the shield spell, 2) make AC less of a god stat (bring back Touch AC), and 3) spread the love around a little and boost the defenses of the classes that need it - monk and ranger foremost, but rogue as well.

Then you replaced a lower-end class with the worse of two choices with one of the most powerful multiclasses in the game.
No duh it's gonna shift balance.

[Unoriginal]

But. What if the ranger isn't a ranger; instead they're a vengeance hexasorcadin with the defensive fighting style. We can avoid quibbles about plate and agree that by level 8

Lvl 8 Hexasorcadin as in, five levels of Vengeance Paladin, one level of Hexblade Warlock and two levels of Sorcerer?

[Snails]

I would probably enjoy these kinds of rules, but I do recognize myself as an outlier. Most tables of players would dislike IMNSHO.

The 5e rule simplifies the math. I roll a Natural 20 for my PC, and I know what to do to calculate my damage. There is no worrying about what the target's AC is. These variants are much much worse for the DM who might have to handle varying to hit bonuses on top of the varying PC ACs.

The 3e critical system was great IMO. But it suffered from an added step that was dependent on the target's AC. That step annoyed people. Some of these proposals are probably less annoying to most players than 3e, but the gap will not be big.

[Witty Username]

Then you replaced a lower-end class with the worse of two choices with one of the most powerful multiclasses in the game.
No duh it's gonna shift balance.

I mean, TWF ranger vs PAM ranger with a shield gets us most of the way there AC wise. The only thing that would be holding it back is the temptation of deuling over defensive.

[Skrum]

Then you replaced a lower-end class with the worse of two choices with one of the most powerful multiclasses in the game.
No duh it's gonna shift balance.

Right but it shifts balance in a very specific way: the DM is going to struggle to hit the AC tower character. There for, the game is gonna start bending around that balance point.

[Kane0]

My point is that the game has the seeds of its own undoing. It takes exactly ONE person stacking AC - and tbc, it's easy to stack, and there's multiple paths to do so - and party balance starts falling apart. I have no doubt that the game runs fine if everyone agrees to a unilateral disarmament (the monsters aren't hitting any less hard! I say unilateral because the players are essentially "agreeing" to get hit a lot). But one player shows up with the "wrong" build, and suddenly there's A LOT of pressure for everyone to build in that direction.


That sorta happened in my last game. The Warforged Paladin picked defense and sword&board, picking up a magic shield and casting shield of faith occasionally. The DM found it quite challenging to down him compared to us, but that really fed into his RP of being the centre of his own universe. He did get petrified at one point so he wasnt invincible or anything, but we could rely on him being the unwavering brick in conventional combat which we saw as an upside (the other side of that coin was his complete lack of tact and subtlety).

So anyways, I disagree. I guess its about perspective of the players at the table if seeing one guy doing X well that it applies pressure for them to also do X well.

[Theodoxus]

Wait, the whole point of this is that there's an imbalance when the entire party has disparate ACs? That's like... Jebuz, 1980 called and wants its armor back.

Talk about the biggest 'no duh' in the history of no duhs!

The easiest way I've found to fix this problem is for armor to not generate a miss chance, but to mitigate damage. Baseline defense (5th Ed AC) is just Dex. That caps you out at 15 AC if you really pump it, but more often than not, it floats in the 10-12 range. Some classes (Monk, Barbarian) add to it, since they're not getting damage mitigation from armor.

Then, armor reduces incoming physical (B/P/S) damage by the amount originally granted as AC, with a few ways of bypassing it.

Magic items and Mage Armor provide AC and magic mitigation. A +1 Ring of Protection boosts your Defense (AC) by 1, and reduces the damage of magic by 1 per die (so, a MM would deal 3d4, not 3(d4+1), a fireball would deal 8d6-8, etc.)

I changed the Shield spell to simply provide disadvantage to the attack triggering it, or a +2 bonus if the attack was already at disadvantage.

Other steps can be taken to address the AC imbalance too, but this would be a good start.

[Arkhios]

Wait, the whole point of this is that there's an imbalance when the entire party has disparate ACs? That's like... Jebuz, 1980 called and wants its armor back.

Talk about the biggest 'no duh' in the history of no duhs!

The easiest way I've found to fix this problem is for armor to not generate a miss chance, but to mitigate damage. Baseline defense (5th Ed AC) is just Dex. That caps you out at 15 AC if you really pump it, but more often than not, it floats in the 10-12 range. Some classes (Monk, Barbarian) add to it, since they're not getting damage mitigation from armor.

Then, armor reduces incoming physical (B/P/S) damage by the amount originally granted as AC, with a few ways of bypassing it.

Magic items and Mage Armor provide AC and magic mitigation. A +1 Ring of Protection boosts your Defense (AC) by 1, and reduces the damage of magic by 1 per die (so, a MM would deal 3d4, not 3(d4+1), a fireball would deal 8d6-8, etc.)

I changed the Shield spell to simply provide disadvantage to the attack triggering it, or a +2 bonus if the attack was already at disadvantage.

Other steps can be taken to address the AC imbalance too, but this would be a good start.

I believe you intended baseline to be 10+Dex. Because, if it were only "just Dex" we'd talk about max 5 without some additional effects from, say, magic items. :smallbiggrin:

On paper, what you suggest seems okay-ish, though I can't help but wonder if the amount of damage mitigated by armor is rather steep. By default, if we're looking at a situation very likely to occur from the 1st level onwards; many creatures attacking a baseline fighter, wearing a chainmail, would never deal any damage to them if they deal less than 16 points of damage per hit.

Personally, I think I would place the damage mitigation at the armor's "AC value -10", for example, or some other extraction value; not directly the entire AC value.

[Theodoxus]

You're correct on both counts, sorry. It's been a moment since I played bog standard 5E... I forgot the armor is set at values above 10, and not 10+x.

Chain is nixing 6 points of damage in general, though as noted, there are ways to bypass it, either completely or partially.

So, while yes, a 1st level fighter would take a while to even get hurt by a horde of standard kobolds, lucky strikes, coordinated attacks and maybe the prodigious use of flaming oil would knock the wind out of his sails. It allows for more tactical combat when everyone is more able to wade into direct melee with less risk to direct harm. Wily opponents will switch to more effective tactics like using fire or magic, or having assassins deal precise strikes from range, bypassing the DR completely.

But it definitely alleviates the 25 AC 'Tank' that has no aggro ability so all the critters concentrate fire on the AC 15 guys instead.

[Rerem115]

I would probably enjoy these kinds of rules, but I do recognize myself as an outlier. Most tables of players would dislike IMNSHO.

...Agreed. Part of me is excited to think about potential edge cases (Conquest Paladin using their Channel Divinity to guarantee a critical smite!), but another part of me is shaking its head at how it skews optimization so far into just boosting AC and to-hit. It's not even close; builds that don't specialize exclusively on defense will suddenly have ~30-60% of attacks levied at them turn into critical hits, with the reverse being true for damage chasers.

Every +X weapon is now +X Keen, as is Archery. Don't take a flavor feat like a noob, they're traps; you should be chasing those +1s in your ASIs. If you're playing a fighter, you're making a mistake if you don't pick EK or Battlemaster, and if you don't take Defense or Archery.

It's a sizeable buff to shield, haste, and silvery barbs, or rather, it's a nerf to everyone who can't utilize them or similar options. I don't think I need to say more

[Arkhios]

You're correct on both counts, sorry. It's been a moment since I played bog standard 5E... I forgot the armor is set at values above 10, and not 10+x.

Chain is nixing 6 points of damage in general, though as noted, there are ways to bypass it, either completely or partially.

So, while yes, a 1st level fighter would take a while to even get hurt by a horde of standard kobolds, lucky strikes, coordinated attacks and maybe the prodigious use of flaming oil would knock the wind out of his sails. It allows for more tactical combat when everyone is more able to wade into direct melee with less risk to direct harm. Wily opponents will switch to more effective tactics like using fire or magic, or having assassins deal precise strikes from range, bypassing the DR completely.

But it definitely alleviates the 25 AC 'Tank' that has no aggro ability so all the critters concentrate fire on the AC 15 guys instead.

To be honest, I've been pondering on a system like this myself at times, but never got into trying one out. At a glance your concept feels good. However, one more thing I'd like clarification for: How does wearing armor interact with the baseline AC (or does it)? Is baseline defense always 10+dex, even when you are wearing armor; especially medium or heavy armor, which normally would restrict how much your dex affects AC? If you'd care to explain the system more thoroughly (entirely, even), I'd appreciate it a lot!

It kinda makes me wonder if this system would encourage even more tanky characters to invest in having a high dexterity score, which isn't necessarily the case in bog standard 5E.

[LibraryOgre]

I'll again point to Hackmaster (and its free Basic Version (https://preview.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/104757/hackmaster-basic-free?affiliate_id=315505)).

Hackmaster has active defense rolls, and most armor causes you to take a penalty to defense... however, armor also provides Damage Reduction.

[Reynaert]

The easiest way I've found to fix this problem is for armor to not generate a miss chance, but to mitigate damage. Baseline defense (5th Ed AC) is just Dex. That caps you out at 15 AC if you really pump it, but more often than not, it floats in the 10-12 range. Some classes (Monk, Barbarian) add to it, since they're not getting damage mitigation from armor.

Then, armor reduces incoming physical (B/P/S) damage by the amount originally granted as AC, with a few ways of bypassing it.

Magic items and Mage Armor provide AC and magic mitigation. A +1 Ring of Protection boosts your Defense (AC) by 1, and reduces the damage of magic by 1 per die (so, a MM would deal 3d4, not 3(d4+1), a fireball would deal 8d6-8, etc.)

I changed the Shield spell to simply provide disadvantage to the attack triggering it, or a +2 bonus if the attack was already at disadvantage.

Other steps can be taken to address the AC imbalance too, but this would be a good start.

AGE does the ame thing, but there the base HP pool is a lot bigger to start with. Not sure how that impacts things.

I've been pondering taking this a somewhat different direction, where AC is just straight damage mitigation. So you roll your attack, the defender subtracts AC and the remainder is damage.
That would need a lot of number tweaking though, to get a similar balance. Something like d20 + weapon damage + stat + prof, and add abou t10 to AC ? Or just double weapon damage + stat + prof. Something like that.

[Theodoxus]

That's probably where I stole it from. I'm a big fan of AGE, though it needs some work still... it's biggest drawback from my perspective is no one in my local area seems to even know what it is, so tweaking it (essentially swapping d20 for AGE, plus bits and pieces from other OSR rulesets) has been purely intellectual on my part with no play or stress testing...

@Arkhios, the 10+Dex idea is for a more 5E centric game, where the basic idea is to keep the relative ACs of the party within a 5 point range outside of pretty specific outliers. The idea being that heavier armors are going to negate more damage, not make the wearer unhittable. Although the strength prerequisites for speed remain, so outside good rolls or dumping mental stats, most martial types are either going to expect to be hit a little more often, but for less, or forego heavy armor in favor of Dex builds (finesse and ranged).

My final form of armor ended up being ablative, though even there I rolled that back for players. For NPCs, I divide their hitpoints in half. Half remain HP the other half are their Armor Hit Points. In general, their AC doesn't change. A roll between 10 and 1 below their AC hits armor, reducing their AHP. A hit equal or greater, deals HP to the creature. It makes fights a little quicker (one thing I apparently do differently from others on this board is end up having fights 10+ rounds for some reason - so my solution puts it closer to 5 to 7 rounds instead).

Taken all together, it allows ACs to be fairly static so no unhittables that just get ignored in favor for squishies, but also provide both damage reduction while still suffering from combat damage, and potentially can be outright destroyed.

It did require me updating some rules for repairing the armor, Mending is now useful, as are tailoring, leatherworking, and smithing tools. It's still possible via magic to boost your AC, but really that just means your armor is going to be getting beat up more in the end...

[Goobahfish]

One thing I might suggest for AC with damage reduction is to make AC = 8 + PB + Dex. That way it scales correctly around a ... 60% to-hit chance?

Damage reduction (apart from being more realistic) actually creates a sensible vibe between heavily armoured and lightly armoued opponents.

Of course, to work in 5E may require some changes as having some weapons or abilities which 'negate armour' becomes an appealing mechanical option. I have mostly had weapons which 'halve DR - rounding down' or 'ignore DR' as standard weapon tags. That way hammers... which do less based damage but half DR basically get a +3 damage bonus against heavily armour opponents compared to their non armour piercing sword equivalents.

There are probably some other adjustments that are needed, but a simple example is:

Sword does D10. Against unarmoured is great.
Hammer does D8. Against unarmoured is 'meh'

If chain is DR = 6, then hammer ends up better vs chain. We have... verisimilitude!

That said, in my system swords have a higher to-hit and can grant AC bonuses... it can get complex very quickly.

[Gurgeh]

One issue I can see for a simple physical DR swap is that it badly disadvantages heavy armour users against spells. 5e doesn't distinguish between "touch" and armoured AC the way 3.5 did: the AC that the game uses to protect you from a swing of a sword is the same AC it uses to protect you from a Fire Bolt. Save-based spells are obviously unaffected by this, but any spell attacks that don't do b/p/s (which, realistically, is most of them) have now gotten a big accuracy boost without any drawbacks.

[rel]

The proposed rule seems like it would be very dangerous in lower power games. And I feel that the extra check for crits would slow down play in a tedious way; No decisions for the player to make, just math for the sake of math.

An expanded crit multiplier of X3 or maybe just maxed damage rolls on a crit under certain situations such as attacking an unarmoured enemy or wielding a particularly effective weapon might be a less extreme way to get the same feel without amping up the lethality too much.

[Goobahfish]

One issue I can see for a simple physical DR swap is that it badly disadvantages heavy armour users against spells. 5e doesn't distinguish between "touch" and armoured AC the way 3.5 did: the AC that the game uses to protect you from a swing of a sword is the same AC it uses to protect you from a Fire Bolt. Save-based spells are obviously unaffected by this, but any spell attacks that don't do b/p/s (which, realistically, is most of them) have now gotten a big accuracy boost without any drawbacks.

This all depends on how spells are handled. If attack spells go back to being saves (i.e. a Dex save) this resolves itself pretty well. The other question is whether armour protects against fire/acid/lightning damage etc. There is a pretty good argument on all accounts here (save perhaps lightning - though if you are wearing gambeson...).

[Theodoxus]

Yeah, leather should be pretty protective against fire. Chain should be weak to acid. Metal weak to lightning. Cloth strong against cold... but that really starts making armor really slow down combat, so probably not a great plan.

OTOH, magic is supposed to be more powerful; so... meh.

[Skrum]

Yeah, leather should be pretty protective against fire. Chain should be weak to acid. Metal weak to lightning. Cloth strong against cold... but that really starts making armor really slow down combat, so probably not a great plan.

OTOH, magic is supposed to be more powerful; so... meh.

This is the kind of stuff that BG3 made so great. The computer handles all the tedious situational bonuses - so yeah, that not practical or fun in the table top version.

I'd like to think there's a middle ground though; making AC more nuanced than "any and all attack rolls are against full AC, and do damage regardless of protection worn."

I dunno what it would be though, off the top of my head.