PDA

View Full Version : D&D 5e/Next AC scaling vs attack scaling



GalacticAxekick
2017-02-05, 10:42 PM
I'm certain a lot of people in the community have noticed. Optimized, a 5e character will go from +2 (prof) and +3 (ability) on attack rolls to +6 (prof) and +5 (ability). The average roll soars from 15 to 21.

Meanwhile, AC doesn't scale nearly as much. Upgrading from +1 (leather) and +3 (dex) to +2 (studded leather) and +5 (dex) is moving from 14 to 17. Upgrading from +6 (chainmail) to +8 (plate) is moving from 16 to 18. These are increases of twos and threes: fractions of how much attacks improve.

I think it'd be appropriate, as I homebrew classes and feats, to offer more features that increase AC and to avoid features that improve attack rolls. But before that, I wanted to run it by the forum to take suggestions and criticisms.

Spectre9000
2017-02-05, 11:55 PM
I think whilst Armor doesnt scale ac like attack scales, you have to remember that health scales significantly as do defensive features such as rage, shield spell, uncanny dodge, evasion, haste, etc. AC takes a back seat later to other damage mitigation as characters gain levels. Also, AC only works against attacks, and does nothing versus spell dc's.

Then there's the fact you can have a +4 plate armor, +4 shield, and shield spell for 33 AC if you really want AC. Oh, 35 AC with shield of faith or Haste, and 36 with defensive fighting style. So, if you're dead set on achieving high AC you're certainly capable of getting it. Oh yea, forge domain gives you another +1 for 37 AC.

GalacticAxekick
2017-02-06, 12:20 AM
+# equipment doesn't really mean anything to me, since for every +4 plate there's a +4 longsword. But the defensive features you mentioned are an important note that hadn't occurred to me! Thanks!

Morphic tide
2017-02-06, 08:45 AM
+# equipment doesn't really mean anything to me, since for every +4 plate there's a +4 longsword. But the defensive features you mentioned are an important note that hadn't occurred to me! Thanks!

Well, you can have two +4 defensive items, while only one +4 offensive item comes against it.

Deleted
2017-02-06, 11:48 AM
If you want a scaling attack/defense system would it not be better to use the contest system?

The game already has a few forms of this.

Ability Check versus Ability Check: This is when you do something like try to shove a target. Athletics (Str) versus Athletics (Str) or Acrobatics (Dex).

Attack Roll versus Ability Check: This when you compare your attack roll to ancreature's ability check to see if an extra effect occurs. To disarm a creature you compare your Attack Roll versus their Acrobatics (Dex) check.

Now the biggest draw to AC is that it is simple and quick. So I would suggest using something like Pathfinder's CMD in replace of AC. This way it scales but in re it won't be a broken mechanic.

AC = 10 + Str or Dex + Prof/Half Prof/No Prof

Certain classes are proficiency with "armor class" and others not so much.

Heavy Armor Prof = Full prof
Light or Medium Armor Prof= Half Prof
No armor Prof = No Prof


Allow armor to give resistances to specific damage types.

====

I'm not sure how well the math works out and maybe you would just want to keep it a contest BUT I think he's system has it built in that something like this could occur if people fiddled with it a bit.

GalacticAxekick
2017-02-06, 12:59 PM
If you want a scaling attack/defense system would it not be better to use the contest system?

The game already has a few forms of this.

Ability Check versus Ability Check: This is when you do something like try to shove a target. Athletics (Str) versus Athletics (Str) or Acrobatics (Dex).

Attack Roll versus Ability Check: This when you compare your attack roll to ancreature's ability check to see if an extra effect occurs. To disarm a creature you compare your Attack Roll versus their Acrobatics (Dex) check. Contests don't scale any better that rolling against a DC. Attack roll vs AC is essentially the same, statistically, as Attack roll vs Defense roll. You can think of AC as a "passive defense roll", so AC 18 from plate represents the average outcome of a 1d20+8 roll, and so forth. And while the attack roll improves with Str/Dex and proficiency, the "Defense roll" would only improve with a couple purchases


Now the biggest draw to AC is that it is simple and quick. So I would suggest using something like Pathfinder's CMD in replace of AC. This way it scales but in re it won't be a broken mechanic.

AC = 10 + Str or Dex + Prof/Half Prof/No Prof

Certain classes are proficiency with "armor class" and others not so much.

Heavy Armor Prof = Full prof
Light or Medium Armor Prof= Half Prof
No armor Prof = No Prof


Allow armor to give resistances to specific damage types.Scaling with proficiency sounds promising! And resistance would help distinguish different armours much like different weapons are distinguished. I'll have a look at the math sometime to be sure, though.

Deleted
2017-02-06, 02:40 PM
Contests don't scale any better that rolling against a DC. Attack roll vs AC is essentially the same, statistically, as Attack roll vs Defense roll. You can think of AC as a "passive defense roll", so AC 18 from plate represents the average outcome of a 1d20+8 roll, and so forth. And while the attack roll improves with Str/Dex and proficiency, the "Defense roll" would only improve with a couple purchases

Scaling with proficiency sounds promising! And resistance would help distinguish different armours much like different weapons are distinguished. I'll have a look at the math sometime to be sure, though.

Armies really need more than just AC values to distinguish them. I always feel weird when my long sword can damage a full plate character as much as a person wearing BDSM gear (leather armor).

Don't get me wrong, I know that HP isn't just meat... But it seems weird.

A mixture of 3e and 4e...

Reflex (Str and Dex), and Will (Wis, Int, and Cha)

Proficient, Half Proficient, and Not Proficient depending on the class.

This way you don't have the issue of there being more Wis saves than Cha and Int saves but cha and Int saves are scary as hell.

Why no con saves? Con saves are redundant. We have HP and hit dice. Just have con save effects work on a hit and deal damage.

Maybe something like...

Physical Defense: 10 + Str or Dex + Prof Bonus (if any)
Physical Save: Str or Dex (whichever the effect calls for) + Prof (if any)

Mental Defense: 10 + Int, Wis, or Cha + Prof Bonus (if any)
Mental Save: Int, Wis, or Cha (whichever the effect calls for) + Prof (if any)

This way you have your individual modifiers (ability mods) but your proficiency also plays a part in it.

Or something like this. I'm not a math guy.

On a practical note...


A Wizard is going to have a strong mind but maybe not thr best force of personality. They still have a strong mind and thus some defense against banishment.

A barbarian is going to be proficient with defending herself. She may not be on top of her game (having to use dex instead of STR) but she knows how to move her body so she has some defense from the fire ball that a wizard wouldn't.

DanyBallon
2017-02-07, 10:36 AM
You need to remember that 5e design was to keep AC in the low numbers in order to keep low CR creatures (in signifiant numbers) still being a threat even in high level games. To compensate this, characters have more HP, easier HP recovery, and a multitude of class abilities that help them survive.

Changing the AC scaling to bring it on par with attack will definately make characters superheroes that can't be challenged except by the most powerful foes.

Deleted
2017-02-07, 10:52 AM
You need to remember that 5e design was to keep AC in the low numbers in order to keep low CR creatures (in signifiant numbers) still being a threat even in high level games. To compensate this, characters have more HP, easier HP recovery, and a multitude of class abilities that help them survive.

Changing the AC scaling to bring it on par with attack will definately make characters superheroes that can't be challenged except by the most powerful foes.

No, not exactly... The ACs aren't low because of the lower CR creatures needing to be a threat at higher levels. They are "low" because the system works off bounded accuracy.

This bounded accuracy system places more weight on the d20 and not on individual bonuses (at least not till higher level).

You can get 16 - 18 AC right off the bat on almost every class without trying too hard.

Hobgoblin (CR 1/2) = +3 to hit
Dust Mephits (CR 1/4) = +4 to hit
Stirge (CR 1/8) = +5 to hit
Worg (CR 1/2) = +5 to hit

These creatures rely so much on the d20 to hit and when you put them together in larger numbers, even if you have a 26 AC, they will be a threat because they will crit. You would just need a lot of them.

Besides, many people think that low CR creatures being a threat is rubbish. As a DM you could always make a tougher version of them.

Knaight
2017-02-07, 10:56 AM
No, not exactly... The ACs aren't low because of the lower CR creatures needing to be a threat at higher levels. They are "low" because the system works off bounded accuracy.

That's not a meaningful distinction - a large part of the reason the bounded accuracy design was picked up in the first place is that it makes weak monsters and characters more able to meaningfully mechanically interact with strong monsters and characters.

Deleted
2017-02-07, 11:16 AM
That's not a meaningful distinction - a large part of the reason the bounded accuracy design was picked up in the first place is that it makes weak monsters and characters more able to meaningfully mechanically interact with strong monsters and characters.

That may be what they said, but I don't buy it.

Weaker creatures aren't a meaningful threat when you are at higher levels unless you just stand there and let them beat on you.

A lot of classes gain some sort of AoE and only so many creatures can surround you at once.

The Wizard alone with Fly and Fireball as signature spells is going to be taking out more mooks than anyone wants to run.

The Ranger, bless its heart, gets their own AoE in Volley/Whirlwind.

Fighter gets multiple attacks.

The Rogue... Well... Good luck finding the rogue cause that ain't happening with a low CR creature or a lot of high CR creatures...

The Barbarian, not even the bear, is taking out 2 or three but has essentially double HP while raging.

Some of these come on at mid levels, some at very late, but the idea that low CR enemies, given enough of them, are a threat is just not happening. Maybe in a white room scenario... Maybe... But it would turn 5e into something it is trying not to be, a combat simulator that needs a battle map.

Knaight
2017-02-07, 11:18 AM
That may be what they said, but I don't buy it.

Weaker creatures aren't a meaningful threat when you are at higher levels unless you just stand there and let them beat on you.

In big swarms they still are - and on the pure attack bonus vs. AC front they can still hit, and often on less than a 20.

GalacticAxekick
2017-02-07, 12:25 PM
You need to remember that 5e design was to keep AC in the low numbers in order to keep low CR creatures (in signifiant numbers) still being a threat even in high level games. To compensate this, characters have more HP, easier HP recovery, and a multitude of class abilities that help them survive.

Changing the AC scaling to bring it on par with attack will definately make characters superheroes that can't be challenged except by the most powerful foes.

That makes a lot of sense! And that's actually pretty clever in terms of design. A master swordsman should never lose to some cobbler, but no master swordsman should be untouchable, and an army of cobblers should be a threat.

Phantos_Argent
2017-02-08, 07:34 AM
A homebrew I used in regards to attacks was to remove AC entirely and just use the saving throw system. Players would roll in response to attacks, using their dexterity for finesse and ranged attacks and their strength in response to heavier attacks. Armor bonuses would add to both of these rolls. It worked out moderately well, though it caused spellcasters to be even squishier than they were, as high physical stats became a lot more important when it came to resisting damage.

Knaight
2017-02-08, 07:37 PM
That makes a lot of sense! And that's actually pretty clever in terms of design. A master swordsman should never lose to some cobbler, but no master swordsman should be untouchable, and an army of cobblers should be a threat.

It's really not that clever. The exact same thing has been done repeatedly in other games with things like round per round ablative defenses (e.g. GURPS), multiple opponents penalties, and a whole bunch of other things, and it's been done without the oddities in skill capability that the 5e BA system introduces.

GalacticAxekick
2017-02-08, 08:24 PM
It's really not that clever. The exact same thing has been done repeatedly in other games with things like round per round ablative defenses (e.g. GURPS), multiple opponents penalties, and a whole bunch of other things, and it's been done without the oddities in skill capability that the 5e BA system introduces.Being done before doesn't make it less clever, in my opinion. Whether a good idea is invented or recognized, it's a good idea.

But I'm curious; what oddities in skill capability?

DanyBallon
2017-02-08, 10:59 PM
Being done before doesn't make it less clever, in my opinion. Whether a good idea is invented or recognized, it's a good idea.

But I'm curious; what oddities in skill capability?

I believe that Knaight refers to a complains many forumnite have, that their is not enough difference between a proficient and non-proficient character, and that dice roll have too much incidence on the chance of success. I.e. The wizard with 18 Int fail an arcana check due to a bad roll while the 8 Int barbarian succeed on a lucky roll.

This feeling seems to be more common from people that have played 3.P for a long time, where the disparencies was far more greater. Often the same people forget that contrary to 3.P, you don't need to roll for everything. In the previous example, if the DM think that their should be no chance of failure for the wizard, then no roll is need and the wizard automatically succeed, or the DM might decide that there is no possible way that the barbarian may know about that arcana topic, so he should not roll at all.

P.S. Knaight, if I guess wrong, feel free to correct me :smallwink:

Deleted
2017-02-08, 11:04 PM
I believe that Knaight refers to a complains many forumnite have, that their is not enough difference between a proficient and non-proficient character, and that dice roll have too much incidence on the chance of success. I.e. The wizard with 18 Int fail an arcana check due to a bad roll while the 8 Int barbarian succeed on a lucky roll.

This feeling seems to be more common from people that have played 3.P for a long time, where the disparencies was far more greater. Often the same people forget that contrary to 3.P, you don't need to roll for everything. In the previous example, if the DM think that their should be no chance of failure for the wizard, then no roll is need and the wizard automatically succeed, or the DM might decide that there is no possible way that the barbarian may know about that arcana topic, so he should not roll at all.

P.S. Knaight, if I guess wrong, feel free to correct me :smallwink:

I don't want to speak for Knaight but... I don't think it is clever because it's almost like giving 5e credit for doing something others have been doing for a long time.

Is it clever to copy others? Eh, crafty yes, but not really clever.

I've been reading a lot of 13th Age stuff recently and I've found that 5e really isn't as special as what a lot of people think. Many of the ideologies were put to use in 13th Age well before 5e came out, some even to greater effect for what they want to accomplish.

DanyBallon
2017-02-09, 08:44 AM
I don't want to speak for Knaight but... I don't think it is clever because it's almost like giving 5e credit for doing something others have been doing for a long time.

Is it clever to copy others? Eh, crafty yes, but not really clever.

I've been reading a lot of 13th Age stuff recently and I've found that 5e really isn't as special as what a lot of people think. Many of the ideologies were put to use in 13th Age well before 5e came out, some even to greater effect for what they want to accomplish.

Clever might not be the right word to use. But you need to give credit to developpers to use mechanics/concepts that improve the game even if they didn't invent them.
Now whether someone think that using these mechanics do improves the game is highly debatable. GalacticAxeKick seems to like it, hence the use of the word "clever".

Deleted
2017-02-09, 09:59 AM
Clever might not be the right word to use. But you need to give credit to developpers to use mechanics/concepts that improve the game even if they didn't invent them.
Now whether someone think that using these mechanics do improves the game is highly debatable. GalacticAxeKick seems to like it, hence the use of the word "clever".

Being very late to the party, isn't exactly clever.

DanyBallon
2017-02-09, 10:38 AM
Being very late to the party, isn't exactly clever.

Does Apple ring a bell to you? :smalltongue:

Many find the Cupertino company to be visionnary when in fact they often came late into a segment. Their former catch phrase "Think different" summarize well their success. I.e. when they lauch the iPhone, cellphone were already widely available, apps and text messages where already existing, but then a cellphone was a phone first and apps where just add-on, what Apple did is making the apps an important function of the iPhone, to the point that today most user barely use their phone to make phone call. So even if the were late to the party and by using existing concept, they manage to change become a well reconized brand in that market. I would say that it qualify as clever.

Not that I'm saying that WotC is equal to apple in regard of 5e, but my point is that you can't rule out being clever if you decide to use game mechanics and concepts well after they been developped.

GalacticAxekick
2017-02-09, 12:04 PM
Clever might not be the right word to use. But you need to give credit to developpers to use mechanics/concepts that improve the game even if they didn't invent them.
Now whether someone think that using these mechanics do improves the game is highly debatable. GalacticAxeKick seems to like it, hence the use of the word "clever".This. Whether it was especially creative on the devs' part, I think the concept is clever in its simplicity and effectiveness, and that the devs' choice to use it was wise.

Deleted
2017-02-09, 01:22 PM
Does Apple ring a bell to you? :smalltongue:

Many find the Cupertino company to be visionnary when in fact they often came late into a segment. Their former catch phrase "Think different" summarize well their success. I.e. when they lauch the iPhone, cellphone were already widely available, apps and text messages where already existing, but then a cellphone was a phone first and apps where just add-on, what Apple did is making the apps an important function of the iPhone, to the point that today most user barely use their phone to make phone call. So even if the were late to the party and by using existing concept, they manage to change become a well reconized brand in that market. I would say that it qualify as clever.

Not that I'm saying that WotC is equal to apple in regard of 5e, but my point is that you can't rule out being clever if you decide to use game mechanics and concepts well after they been developped.

Apple isn't clever for making or inventing anything, they were effective in marketing.

Apple created a generation by making them want their product. That product could be smart phones or empty cups... They made people need their product.

Honestly, I don't have a high opinion of Apple for many reasons. Partially because their products are cheap and partially because of all the child labor.

No part of Apple is clever, except maybe making Steve Jobs the face and keeping Wozniak in the shadows (Steve Jobs is "prettier" and charismatic enough in the right way).