What If: crit when beat AC by 5 or more

[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), 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.

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).

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...).