It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Seems like this is the perfect application for Fighting Style: Defense
Practically speaking, being proficient in something doesn't mean that someone will automatically continue to improve dramatically in that particular area, especially for generalists who may be proficient in far more things than they have time to pursue deeply. If a character wants to become a specialist, that should be reflected in the choices they make through leveling.
Otherwise, we're going to see a bunch of Proficiency Munchkins who will stack up on entry level proficiencies and Cantrips and just ride the gravy train.
FWIW, 4th edition added level/2 to both attack and AC. It's the only edition that did anything equivalent, though 3rd did have feats that increased AC.
Is there not? You don't think shield use is skill based in the slightest bit?
Shield use is skill based, but it is not more skill based than parrying.
Ah. No it isn't. You're right. It just does a better job than parrying alone.
That suggests a flat bonus.
Naw. You're mixing up being more skill based with better results from being skill based. It is skill based. And it defends better. Those two together is represented fine with full prof instead of half only. Is straightforward. Keeps there from being a bunch of extra steps or maths.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
There is a mechanical intricacy I think you're missing.
Half cover gives you a +2 to AC. That's why every single shield gives you +2. A shield isn't just a targe. It's a rondelle, a buckler, a hoplon, and a neutered pavis too. It doesn't matter how good you are with a shield, you can't be better at protecting your legs than a brick wall protecting your legs... or a tree protecting your entire left side.
I digress, the cover system is actually pretty poop and needs to be updated. And shields should still give +2, with some giving other benefits. A tower shield gives each ally within 1 space of you half cover. A pavis can be stood in place to function as half cover. A buckler gives +0AC, but you can spend your reaction to boost your AC by some number until the end of that turn (not round).
Three-Quarters cover gives +5 AC, so that's the cover AC limit. Not just +2.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Naw. You're mixing up being more skill based with better results from being skill based. It is skill based. And it defends better. Those two together is represented fine with full prof instead of half only. Is straightforward. Keeps there from being a bunch of extra steps or maths.
The point is: if we assume a novice with a sword has a 50% chance to hit another novice with a sword, and a 40% chance to hit another novice with sword and shield, we would expect an expert to have the same 50%/40%. Which means you should just be adding full proficiency bonus all the time (this is a very simplified assumption; in reality it depends on the degree to which expertise matters for a given fighting style; I would not be surprised if shields are actually either more or less relevant at high skill, but absent better information the default should be neutral).
In practice, all of this is a bad idea without much larger redesigns for the D&D combat system than are being discussed here.
Naw. You're mixing up being more skill based with better results from being skill based. It is skill based. And it defends better. Those two together is represented fine with full prof instead of half only. Is straightforward. Keeps there from being a bunch of extra steps or maths.
The point is: if we assume a novice with a sword has a 50% chance to hit another novice with a sword, and a 40% chance to hit another novice with sword and shield, we would expect an expert to have the same 50%/40%. Which means you should just be adding full proficiency bonus all the time (this is a very simplified assumption; in reality it depends on the degree to which expertise matters for a given fighting style; I would not be surprised if shields are actually either more or less relevant at high skill, but absent better information the default should be neutral).
In practice, all of this is a bad idea without much larger redesigns for the D&D combat system than are being discussed here.
Hmm. Not sure where those numbers come from. The suggestion I was speaking to had No Armor as 9+dex. So, assume for simplicity sake we're dealing with 10 in stats folk.
What we want to see is a equilibrium between maximal offensive skill vs maximal defensive skill. Ie Armed vs Armed + Shield should stay the same. And we should see it get easier and easier to hit less well protected foes as they get higher level. Ie As they get skilled the unarmed person gets easier to hit but fully defended doesn't. And that is exactly what we'd see.
We'd have:
Novice with sword vs novice unarmed: +2 vs AC9. 70% chance to hit.
Novice with sword vs novice with sword: +2 vs AC10. 65% chance to hit.
Novice with sword vs novice with swords and board: +2 vs AC11. 60% chance to hit.
Then if we get to like max level dudes we have:
Hero with sword vs hero unarmed: +6 vs AC9. 90% chance to hit.
Hero with sword vs hero with sword: +6 vs AC12. 75% chance to hit.
Hero with sword vs hero with swords and board: +6 vs AC15. 60% chance to hit.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
In 5E's calculations, HP actually represent a big part of your increased defensive skills at higher levels. Remember, they're an abstraction that don't literally represent how many times you can be stabbed before the blood loss catches up with you.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
In 5E's calculations, HP actually represent a big part of your increased defensive skills at higher levels. Remember, they're an abstraction that don't literally represent how many times you can be stabbed before the blood loss catches up with you.
If that was true healing magic wouldn't restore them if you "dodged" the attack that caused damage. HP is how much damage you can take. Abstract it as much as you want but healing fixes it, so it is damage you've actually sustained. That can be bruises, sprains, scratches, etc, but it is damage, injury, that healing magic fixes. So it isn't so abstract as to be attacks you avoided.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
In 5E's calculations, HP actually represent a big part of your increased defensive skills at higher levels. Remember, they're an abstraction that don't literally represent how many times you can be stabbed before the blood loss catches up with you.
If that was true healing magic wouldn't restore them if you "dodged" the attack that caused damage. HP is how much damage you can take. Abstract it as much as you want but healing fixes it, so it is damage you've actually sustained. That can be bruises, sprains, scratches, etc, but it is damage, injury, that healing magic fixes. So it isn't so abstract as to be attacks you avoided.
But it is how the game reflects a character getting better at avoiding serious injury. A 10th level Fighter isn't really taking 15 sword blows. They are getting those bruises and sprains from dodging them.
What we want to see is a equilibrium between maximal offensive skill vs maximal defensive skill. Ie Armed vs Armed + Shield should stay the same. And we should see it get easier and easier to hit less well protected foes as they get higher level.
Why is that what we want to see? My general preference is that hit chance against equal foes is constant across levels, and the difference between offensive and defensive styles is just in what that constant is.
In 5E's calculations, HP actually represent a big part of your increased defensive skills at higher levels. Remember, they're an abstraction that don't literally represent how many times you can be stabbed before the blood loss catches up with you.
If that was true healing magic wouldn't restore them if you "dodged" the attack that caused damage. HP is how much damage you can take. Abstract it as much as you want but healing fixes it, so it is damage you've actually sustained. That can be bruises, sprains, scratches, etc, but it is damage, injury, that healing magic fixes. So it isn't so abstract as to be attacks you avoided.
I did mention that hit points were problematic if you looked at them too closely. Hit points is essentially converting solid hits to marginal hits, because absent supernatural powers it really only takes one solid hit to drop someone.
I think this is a problem of level scaling most of all. One of the biggest problems of DnD 5e is that it scales character power by making combat longer. Lvl 1 characters can be killed by a few goblins in one round and lvl 17-20 goes all Dragonball Z with fights that last 4 sessions. (Ok, I MAY exaggerate a tiny bit, but you get the point. ) 😅
HP and HP regain and magical/nonmagical survivability increases a lot faster than damage. So combat just takes longer.
The sweet spot imo is somewhere between lvl 5-10.
Also, AC is often at its highest relative point at early levels. Attack bonuses increase a lot more than AC, unless you decide to optimize. The higher level you are, the more likely everyone is to hit.
So I think the problem you described is more general than just AC. Because I like that you can get hit. Missing is not very fun, because basically it just wastes time. 😅 The combination of enemies missing more and the toughness of the fighter when they do hit is the key imo. I often describe low damage as something that hits the armor even if it surpasses AC.
What we want to see is a equilibrium between maximal offensive skill vs maximal defensive skill. Ie Armed vs Armed + Shield should stay the same. And we should see it get easier and easier to hit less well protected foes as they get higher level.
Why is that what we want to see? My general preference is that hit chance against equal foes is constant across levels, and the difference between offensive and defensive styles is just in what that constant is.
Because having it so that you never actually get better at landing hits regardless of how many levels you gain makes it feel like you're not actually improving. Playing a martial character who misses all the time is not fun, it makes it feel like you're not actually doing anything in combat. Especially when HP keeps going up so fights keep dragging on further and further. It makes the game boring.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Because having it so that you never actually get better at landing hits regardless of how many levels you gain makes it feel like you're not actually improving.
You're getting better at landing hits on the things that used to give you trouble; you're just up against tougher stuff now (or maybe you're just up against larger numbers of the stuff that used to be hard). I've played in plenty of games where hit probability against an equal foe didn't change with experience... and it was fine.
That said, I agree about one thing: if defenses start increasing more with level, hit points should increase less.
Because having it so that you never actually get better at landing hits regardless of how many levels you gain makes it feel like you're not actually improving.
You're getting better at landing hits on the things that used to give you trouble; you're just up against tougher stuff now (or maybe you're just up against larger numbers of the stuff that used to be hard). I've played in plenty of games where hit probability against an equal foe didn't change with experience... and it was fine.
That said, I agree about one thing: if defenses start increasing more with level, hit points should increase less.
You're also doing a lot more damage when you hit at higher levels, so you can certainly view that as your character are getting better at finding weak/critical spots
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Because having it so that you never actually get better at landing hits regardless of how many levels you gain makes it feel like you're not actually improving.
You're getting better at landing hits on the things that used to give you trouble; you're just up against tougher stuff now (or maybe you're just up against larger numbers of the stuff that used to be hard). I've played in plenty of games where hit probability against an equal foe didn't change with experience... and it was fine.
That said, I agree about one thing: if defenses start increasing more with level, hit points should increase less.
I've played games like that too and in most of them, the defense boost is something that requires you to make an action (like a dodge roll) against specific attacks and is not a passive bonus that applies equally to all attacks every round. And also in most of those games there is no way (or at least no easy way) to seriously improve your base durability to any significant extent. Also, they tend to be games where combat is significantly more lethal that D&D, where even taking damage can leave a character permanently.
You're also doing a lot more damage when you hit at higher levels, so you can certainly view that as your character are getting better at finding weak/critical spots
The rogue is the only class who's base damage per hit increases to any significant degree as it levels. Paladins get some and barbarians get a little but fighters get practically nothing. There are some subclasses that get boosts, but those are all done via expending limited resources and not every subclass gets them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
You're also doing a lot more damage when you hit at higher levels, so you can certainly view that as your character are getting better at finding weak/critical spots
The rogue is the only class who's base damage per hit increases to any significant degree as it levels. Paladins get some and barbarians get a little but fighters get practically nothing. There are some subclasses that get boosts, but those are all done via expending limited resources and not every subclass gets them.
True, but higher level fighters just get more attacks which translates to more hits statistically anyway.
Shield use is skill based, but it is not more skill based than parrying.
Ah. No it isn't. You're right. It just does a better job than parrying alone.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
That suggests a flat bonus.
Seems like this is the perfect application for Fighting Style: Defense
Practically speaking, being proficient in something doesn't mean that someone will automatically continue to improve dramatically in that particular area, especially for generalists who may be proficient in far more things than they have time to pursue deeply. If a character wants to become a specialist, that should be reflected in the choices they make through leveling.
Otherwise, we're going to see a bunch of Proficiency Munchkins who will stack up on entry level proficiencies and Cantrips and just ride the gravy train.
FWIW, 4th edition added level/2 to both attack and AC. It's the only edition that did anything equivalent, though 3rd did have feats that increased AC.
Naw. You're mixing up being more skill based with better results from being skill based. It is skill based. And it defends better. Those two together is represented fine with full prof instead of half only. Is straightforward. Keeps there from being a bunch of extra steps or maths.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
There is a mechanical intricacy I think you're missing.
Half cover gives you a +2 to AC. That's why every single shield gives you +2. A shield isn't just a targe. It's a rondelle, a buckler, a hoplon, and a neutered pavis too. It doesn't matter how good you are with a shield, you can't be better at protecting your legs than a brick wall protecting your legs... or a tree protecting your entire left side.
I digress, the cover system is actually pretty poop and needs to be updated. And shields should still give +2, with some giving other benefits. A tower shield gives each ally within 1 space of you half cover. A pavis can be stood in place to function as half cover. A buckler gives +0AC, but you can spend your reaction to boost your AC by some number until the end of that turn (not round).
Three-Quarters cover gives +5 AC, so that's the cover AC limit. Not just +2.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
The point is: if we assume a novice with a sword has a 50% chance to hit another novice with a sword, and a 40% chance to hit another novice with sword and shield, we would expect an expert to have the same 50%/40%. Which means you should just be adding full proficiency bonus all the time (this is a very simplified assumption; in reality it depends on the degree to which expertise matters for a given fighting style; I would not be surprised if shields are actually either more or less relevant at high skill, but absent better information the default should be neutral).
In practice, all of this is a bad idea without much larger redesigns for the D&D combat system than are being discussed here.
Hmm. Not sure where those numbers come from. The suggestion I was speaking to had No Armor as 9+dex. So, assume for simplicity sake we're dealing with 10 in stats folk.
What we want to see is a equilibrium between maximal offensive skill vs maximal defensive skill. Ie Armed vs Armed + Shield should stay the same. And we should see it get easier and easier to hit less well protected foes as they get higher level. Ie As they get skilled the unarmed person gets easier to hit but fully defended doesn't. And that is exactly what we'd see.
We'd have:
Then if we get to like max level dudes we have:
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
In 5E's calculations, HP actually represent a big part of your increased defensive skills at higher levels. Remember, they're an abstraction that don't literally represent how many times you can be stabbed before the blood loss catches up with you.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
If that was true healing magic wouldn't restore them if you "dodged" the attack that caused damage. HP is how much damage you can take. Abstract it as much as you want but healing fixes it, so it is damage you've actually sustained. That can be bruises, sprains, scratches, etc, but it is damage, injury, that healing magic fixes. So it isn't so abstract as to be attacks you avoided.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
But it is how the game reflects a character getting better at avoiding serious injury. A 10th level Fighter isn't really taking 15 sword blows. They are getting those bruises and sprains from dodging them.
Why is that what we want to see? My general preference is that hit chance against equal foes is constant across levels, and the difference between offensive and defensive styles is just in what that constant is.
I did mention that hit points were problematic if you looked at them too closely. Hit points is essentially converting solid hits to marginal hits, because absent supernatural powers it really only takes one solid hit to drop someone.
I think this is a problem of level scaling most of all. One of the biggest problems of DnD 5e is that it scales character power by making combat longer. Lvl 1 characters can be killed by a few goblins in one round and lvl 17-20 goes all Dragonball Z with fights that last 4 sessions. (Ok, I MAY exaggerate a tiny bit, but you get the point. ) 😅
HP and HP regain and magical/nonmagical survivability increases a lot faster than damage. So combat just takes longer.
The sweet spot imo is somewhere between lvl 5-10.
Also, AC is often at its highest relative point at early levels. Attack bonuses increase a lot more than AC, unless you decide to optimize. The higher level you are, the more likely everyone is to hit.
So I think the problem you described is more general than just AC. Because I like that you can get hit. Missing is not very fun, because basically it just wastes time. 😅 The combination of enemies missing more and the toughness of the fighter when they do hit is the key imo. I often describe low damage as something that hits the armor even if it surpasses AC.
Finland GMT/UTC +2
Because having it so that you never actually get better at landing hits regardless of how many levels you gain makes it feel like you're not actually improving. Playing a martial character who misses all the time is not fun, it makes it feel like you're not actually doing anything in combat. Especially when HP keeps going up so fights keep dragging on further and further. It makes the game boring.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
You're getting better at landing hits on the things that used to give you trouble; you're just up against tougher stuff now (or maybe you're just up against larger numbers of the stuff that used to be hard). I've played in plenty of games where hit probability against an equal foe didn't change with experience... and it was fine.
That said, I agree about one thing: if defenses start increasing more with level, hit points should increase less.
You're also doing a lot more damage when you hit at higher levels, so you can certainly view that as your character are getting better at finding weak/critical spots
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I've played games like that too and in most of them, the defense boost is something that requires you to make an action (like a dodge roll) against specific attacks and is not a passive bonus that applies equally to all attacks every round. And also in most of those games there is no way (or at least no easy way) to seriously improve your base durability to any significant extent. Also, they tend to be games where combat is significantly more lethal that D&D, where even taking damage can leave a character permanently.
The rogue is the only class who's base damage per hit increases to any significant degree as it levels. Paladins get some and barbarians get a little but fighters get practically nothing. There are some subclasses that get boosts, but those are all done via expending limited resources and not every subclass gets them.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
True, but higher level fighters just get more attacks which translates to more hits statistically anyway.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting