What If: crit when beat AC by 5 or more

[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.

[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.

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

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.

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[ing] choices that make their character good at what they're supposed to do" if they don't have at least 20 AC is 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.