I had a discussion (that partly turned into arguing, because some people kept bringing up unrelated examples to the topic) about AC, and I want to see what you guys think about this too.
Here's what I thought:
A level 1 PC fighter (Now named Borg) with the same gear (Please don't make me have to repeat this 3 times again) as a level 20 PC fighter (Hencefort called Cale) will have the same chances of dodging/blocking/parrying an attack from a goblin. Shouldn't Cale be experienced enough in combat to make it really difficult for the goblin to hit him? He is practically a living legend, and yet a goblin is able to injure him.
Sure, Cale can take a lot more hits than Borg because of more HP, but they are still getting the same stab on the same place from the same dagger. NOTE: I am talking about the chances of getting hit and thus losing HP, not the lethality of the encounter itself. Please do not forget this either. Also, I will talk more about HP later, put this matter aside until then.
To reflect Cale's vast experience in fighting, I think his AC should increase as he levels (Not by ridiculous amounts, nor by negligible numbers). The higher level enemies should also get a higher attack modifier, to reflect their experience in combat. If both sides are similiarly experienced/leveled and gets a +10 increase to both their attacks and ACs, then the chances of hitting and getting hit is still the same as before, the only time the difference would show is if a master fights against a novice. A master is faster and more accurate with their attacks, as shown in their proficiency increase. However, their defences stays the same. I feel like this doesn't properly reflect their skill differences.
Cue irrelevant arguments (and some salt, sorry about that):
"David and Goliath!" It’s not like it’s completely impossible for a goblin to win if Cale’s AC increases, it just need to roll nat20 5 times in a row just like David did against Goliath. David killing Goliath is a miracle for a reason, you know.
"The players needs to do and take damage to feel the danger and entertainment! And it's boring if they never hit!" Would you feel in danger if a lone goblin did 5 damage to your 200HP barbarian? If 100 goblins came after you, maybe, but a single one? And if you rolled nat19 and did no damage to the enemy, would you feel bored or would you think "oh shit, I messed with the wrong guy."?
"Atilla the Hun died of nosebleed" Yep, that's disease-related. Not related to combat skills. I don't see your point.
"Cale has so much HP that he isn't afraid for a puny 1d6+2" He's not afraid of the numbers, no. But he gets hit by it, which is something that shouldn't happen that easily.
"Borg can't have the same gear as Cale" No, probably not unless your DM loves giving out overpowered stuff. But I said "with the same gear".
"Battle master, Parry. Dice increase at higher levels" That is for battlemasters. What about the other subclasses, like champions?
"Regeneration". Yes, champions can regenerate after they take damage. Meaning they got hit. By a measly goblin far inferior to them in combat ability.
"It's more exciting to get hit and overcome real danger instead of saying that you arrive and win." A goblin, real danger? If Cale can't say that he will win when he sees a group of 2-3 goblins, then he should just retire. It is also near impossible for Borg to take down an elder dragon by himself.
"It's a game. Chill out." If a game made you start out at level cap and strong enough to one-shot every enemy on the road, would that be fun? No, because we like a certain level of realism in the game. A realism that is not shown in a PC's defensive abilities. I'm not talking about getting it 100% realistic, I'm only discussing my idea about an increased attack modifier and AC for higher level PCs and enemies.
Yes, all of that was actual arguments I got in that discussion I mentioned. I answered some of them in the same way as here.
So, continuing on from the salt.
All of this that I mentioned before applies only to when you actually get hit. If the DM uses HP as stamina and describes it as "You block the strike with your shield, but the force of the attack leaves your arm quivering." or "The mace hits your side pretty hard and it knocks all the air out of your lungs. You feel nauseous and dizzy as you rise up from the hit.", then I would have no problem with it, since Borg using 50% of his stamina to block an attack while Cale is using 5% of his stamina to block the same strike (due to more effective movements) is very reasonable. However, every DM I have been with uses HP as "meat points", and every HP loss is a direct hit on your body. I've even seen some cases where a character gets a sword right through his stomach and still has over 50% of his HP. This is why I like the vitality variant rule, since HP loss isn't actually any direct hits on you, whilst vitality damage is.
Well, thinking about it, I think I'm more at odds with how most DMs describe HP loss rather than the AC system in itself. There are still some small inconsistencies even if the DM did describe HP loss as stamina loss, but they're small enough for me to overlook them without minding too much. It is a game after all, and we've passed the 'certain level of realism' requirement that I have for games.
For those extra interested in these inconsistencies: If you hit someone with poison dagger, will they get poisoned even it is described as "parried"? Or is it a small scratch? But if it was, then you wouldn't lose that much HP from the dagger itself. And if you describe it as a full hit, then we're just going back to the start. We also have the issue that Borg's and Cale's chance for completely dodging an attack is still the same (chance for 0 HP loss), even though Cale should be better at dodging than Borg.
There's no doubt that, in our real world, a more accomplished warrior will more easily evade blows landing on them.
However, Dungeons & Dragons uses a simplified combat model, to allow the game to flow quickly.
There are certainly other TTRPG available that have much more complex models for combat, but D&D is simpler.
As characters advance in levels their ability to survive and defend themselves grows through a single mechanic - hit points. Hit points is a fairly absurd mechanic if you analyse it - it's absurd that a 10th level fighter can survive several point-blank crossbow bolts to the face. Hit points represent a more abstract mechanism though, of luck and skill reducing the impact of attacks.
In your example, maybe Borg has 10 hit points and Cale has 200 hit points. The 1d6+2 attack from that goblin is life threatening for Borg. A couple of good attacks from that goblin can take him down. Cale isn't so worried - he knows that his experience will allow him to easily avoid any real danger from the goblin.
Also in many cases a character *will* increase AC as they advance levels. All classes have different methods for that, but just for a fighter the options include: ASI increase to dexterity, Defence fighting style (taken second as champion or brute), evasive footwork (battle master), warding maneuver (cavalier), eldrich knight defensive magics, feats like defensive duelist or dual wielder. That stuff, plus the mentioned abstract nature of hit points thoroughly encompasses the difference in skill level between these two beings.
The joys of abstract models trying to model something we can relate to. Or not relate to.
This is how I think of it; and it is much more in line with your thinking of vitality points.
In this case, the expertise of the higher level fighter is represented by the higher Hit Point pool. So a dagger has the same probability to landing a blow in both fighter's cases. But the experienced fighters "damage" is probably not even a scratch, it's a more of a bruise. After 20 of those bruises, he's slowing down and is getting cuts. 20 more and he's slower and bleeding badly.
For the lower level fighter, that dagger could be a major hit under the arm to the brachial artery. It represents half his health, not a bruise because he didn't turn his torso to deflect the the hit with his armor, so it would only be a bruise.
Could have Dnd made AC scale with proficiency bonus? Sure, but then to make it equal (a stab wound is a stab wound) the hit points should be static and/or far lower.
Super Realism isn't always fun or fast. So compromises are made with abstraction. Bottom line still is to have fun without getting into fight about mechanics. The monsters are the bad guys, not the other players :)
If the DM uses HP as stamina (...) then I would have no problem with it (...). However, every DM I have been with uses HP as "meat points", and every HP loss is a direct hit on your body.
I agree with you that hit points are a measure of how much effort it took to not actually be stabbed to death with a deadly weapon, and every DM you have played with have been wrong (in my opinion).
It allows groups of smart goblins to pose a threat to Cale. Yes, this does mean that the rules allow a single goblin to scratch Cale relatively often, but it's a game, and the rules can't be too complicated. Trying to simulate the effects of fighting multiple creatures is just going to slow things down.
It allows players to have a chance to hit things no matter what their CR. Again, it's a game, and that means the rules need to be fun, and when AC scales with level or CR sometimes players miss a tough monster a lot, waiting several minutes in between each attempt. Letting hits happen more often and compensating with the monster's HP doesn't make much of a difference in how the encounter plays out but it sure makes a difference to how players experience it.
That aside HP is effectively stamina combined with luck and determination. The combat chapter makes it clear that the assumption is that you only suffer fatal injuries when dropped to 0 HP. Cale is in fact much better at not getting stabbed than Borg; he's just not untouchable. Poisons vary in potency a lot and many aren't fast-acting enough to kill or knock you out the very instant it enters the bloodstream so I don't see why you have a problem with the poisoned dagger example.
Also in many cases a character *will* increase AC as they advance levels. All classes have different methods for that, but just for a fighter the options include: ASI increase to dexterity, Defence fighting style (taken second as champion or brute), evasive footwork (battle master), warding maneuver (cavalier), eldrich knight defensive magics, feats like defensive duelist or dual wielder. That stuff, plus the mentioned abstract nature of hit points thoroughly encompasses the difference in skill level between these two beings.
Hm, I thought I already mentioned this as examples. I know I wrote it at some point, but I guess I backspaced through it and forgot to write it on again. Thanks for bringing it up again.
I was thinking that what you mention in particular is currently the best way we have to reflect defensive ability increase, just that characters has to go specific routes to gain anything out from it, while I think the AC gain should be gained no matter which subclass you go. I also realise that I had written something like ‘’A character’s offensive ability increases with levels, as shown in their proficiency, and I think something similiar should apply to their defensive abilities too’’, but that thought also got lost somewhere when I was writing this.
However, Dungeons & Dragons uses a simplified combat model, to allow the game to flow quickly.
As characters advance in levels their ability to survive and defend themselves grows through a single mechanic - hit points. Hit points is a fairly absurd mechanic if you analyse it - it's absurd that a 10th level fighter can survive several point-blank crossbow bolts to the face. Hit points represent a more abstract mechanism though, of luck and skill reducing the impact of attacks.
Yup, the game mechanics definitely flows better with less numbers to keep track of. This was just an idea I had, to make it more realistic. Like a suggestion to a variant rule, maybe?
And yeah, a 10th level fighter taking several bolts through his face is definitely weird, if a DM described it as that every time he got hit for a max damage on non-crits, I’d start to wonder how he’s imagining things. This is what I meant when I said that Cale uses 5% of his stamina to defend himself from an attack when taking a HP loss, instead of describing it as actually getting a new hole in his body. It’s just that I’ve never seen any DMs describe it in that way.
It allows groups of smart goblins to pose a threat to Cale. Yes, this does mean that the rules allow a single goblin to scratch Cale relatively often, but it's a game, and the rules can't be too complicated. Trying to simulate the effects of fighting multiple creatures is just going to slow things down.
It allows players to have a chance to hit things no matter what their CR. Again, it's a game, and that means the rules need to be fun, and when AC scales with level or CR sometimes players miss a tough monster a lot, waiting several minutes in between each attempt. Letting hits happen more often and compensating with the monster's HP doesn't make much of a difference in how the encounter plays out but it sure makes a difference to how players experience it.
That aside HP is effectively stamina combined with luck and determination. The combat chapter makes it clear that the assumption is that you only suffer fatal injuries when dropped to 0 HP. Cale is in fact much better at not getting stabbed than Borg; he's just not untouchable. Poisons vary in potency a lot and many aren't fast-acting enough to kill or knock you out the very instant it enters the bloodstream so I don't see why you have a problem with the poisoned dagger example.
Yeah, too much mechanics will just slow things down, and I'm not saying to eliminate the chances of taking any hits at all. There would still be a possibility, just much less likely depending on the level difference. A group of hundred goblins will still be able to take down Cale due to the sheer number of attacks each turn, but it will be much more likely that Cale will slaughter half of them before that happens, and this really depicts the impression of the "unkillable monster" standing in the middle of a bloody battlefield, surrounded by corpses.
Players will always have the chance of taking down an enemy no matter its strength, I just think it's far easier to do so than it should be. If a hundred children used slings on an adult white dragon, it'd take around 30 damage of its 200 max HP. Isn't that a bit much? It's kinda unepic that an adult dragon, the epitome of strength, should get heavily injured by a bunch of children, isnt it? These things should be able to threathen entire armies, yet they have a 15% chance to be damaged by a pebble flung by a child. It is much more realistic (as realistic as we can with a dragon, at least) that most of the pebbles bounces off its scales, and that maybe 1 of the hundred pebbles hits an open wound that the dragon has. Sure, the children could aim for that wound specifically, that would mean that they have enough combat experience to find and aim for weak points. If that's the case, their attack modifier would increase to reflect this.
As for the poison thing, I mean the chances of getting hit by a poison dagger in the first place. Cale should be better at avoiding stabs than Borg, but they still have the same chances of getting hit with the AC system. If Borg uses 25% of his max HP to avoid a poison dagger attack, then it is reasonable that he got nicked by it, but is it still as reasonable to say that Cale used 2% of his HP to completely block the attack, yet he still gets poisoned? Ignore saving throws, that happens after they actually get into contact with the poison.
A group of hundred goblins will still be able to take down Cale due to the sheer number of attacks each turn, but it will be much more likely that Cale will slaughter half of them before that happens, and this really depicts the impression of the "unkillable monster" standing in the middle of a bloody battlefield, surrounded by corpses.
That's assuming Cale is only fighting goblins, and that the goblins are fighting fair. Just throw in some higher CR monsters that can hold Cale's attention for longer than 1 round, and suddenly a dozen goblin archers behind 3/4 cover aren't a joke any more.
Players will always have the chance of taking down an enemy no matter its strength, I just think it's far easier to do so than it should be. If a hundred children used slings on an adult white dragon, it'd take around 30 damage of its 200 max HP. Isn't that a bit much? It's kinda unepic that an adult dragon, the epitome of strength, should get heavily injured by a bunch of children, isnt it?
The dragon isn't heavily injured. At best it's got some mild bruises. It could walk it off after a short rest and still have hit dice to spare. Never mind the fact that a dragon has no reason to actually get within the normal range of a sling when it can just do flyby attacks with its breath weapon.
As for the poison thing, I mean the chances of getting hit by a poison dagger in the first place. Cale should be better at avoiding stabs than Borg, but they still have the same chances of getting hit with the AC system. If Borg uses 25% of his max HP to avoid a poison dagger attack, then it is reasonable that he got nicked by it, but is it still as reasonable to say that Cale used 2% of his HP to completely block the attack, yet he still gets poisoned?
Cale didn't completely block the attack, he got scratched by the dagger. That kind of thing can happen if someone gets the jump on Cale or Cale is distracted fighting multiple people.
Yeah, that is only if the goblins are fighting fair. That's what I'm talking about. If they were fairly fighting each other, then goblins should have a very hard time hitting Cale compared to hitting Borg, but they don't because of how AC works.
And yes, there are some bruises on the dragon. I am comparing it to a level 1 wizard taking 1 damage. I'm saying that this shouldn't be happening due to how well the dragon scales protects the dragon, and because the children aren't trained soldiers. It is comparable to the wizard taking 1 damage from an infant throwing a punch at him. At least I think the power difference between the children and an adult dragon should be as big as a level 1 wizard and an infant. A dragon is an epic encounter because it is extremely strong, and it undermines its whole "top of the food chain" reputation if a group of children can harm it.
Yes, you are saying that Cale didn't block the dagger. He got scratched by it. We already agreed that he would be better at dodging stabs than Borg too, right? Yet they both have the same chances of being scratched. This is the inconsistency I am talking about.
Basically no good DM and/or player would let a character have the same AC it started with unless that was not the character's concern.
The only way AC increases is through armor or specific feats, ASI or fighting styles. None of it changes because the character gets better at defending themselves. Their HP changes, but that's a little different as I've explained.
Basically no good DM and/or player would let a character have the same AC it started with unless that was not the character's concern.
The only way AC increases is through armor or specific feats, ASI or fighting styles. None of it changes because the character gets better at defending themselves. Their HP changes, but that's a little different as I've explained.
Have you considered that feats, ASIs, and fighting styles IS the character getting better at defending themselves?
Basically no good DM and/or player would let a character have the same AC it started with unless that was not the character's concern.
The only way AC increases is through armor or specific feats, ASI or fighting styles. None of it changes because the character gets better at defending themselves. Their HP changes, but that's a little different as I've explained.
Have you considered that feats, ASIs, and fighting styles IS the character getting better at defending themselves?
And if a character doesn't pick any of those, is his defensive abilities the same as a level 1 even though he is level 20?
Basically no good DM and/or player would let a character have the same AC it started with unless that was not the character's concern.
The only way AC increases is through armor or specific feats, ASI or fighting styles. None of it changes because the character gets better at defending themselves. Their HP changes, but that's a little different as I've explained.
Have you considered that feats, ASIs, and fighting styles IS the character getting better at defending themselves?
And if a character doesn't pick any of those, is his defensive abilities the same as a level 1 even though he is level 20?
If a Fighter never multiclasses into a caster class (and doesn't pick Arcane Archer or Eldritch Knight as a subclass), their casting abilities will also be the same at level 20 as they were at level 1, because they never decided to invest into improving them. If a character decides to forego any improvement to their defensive capabilities (no DEX ASI, no defensive feats, no pursuing better gear, no getting a defensive fighting style, etc.), then yeah, the only improvement they'll see is the one offered by a bigger HP pool.
There is no "inconsistency", by the way. There's a discrepancy between what the game describes and what you feel should be true. In this game, children throwing stones can hurt an Adult White Dragon. You believe they shouldn't. So either accept that this is not the game you wish it were, or tweak the rules to better suit your idea of how it should be. =)
Basically no good DM and/or player would let a character have the same AC it started with unless that was not the character's concern.
The only way AC increases is through armor or specific feats, ASI or fighting styles. None of it changes because the character gets better at defending themselves. Their HP changes, but that's a little different as I've explained.
Have you considered that feats, ASIs, and fighting styles IS the character getting better at defending themselves?
And if a character doesn't pick any of those, is his defensive abilities the same as a level 1 even though he is level 20?
If a Fighter never multiclasses into a caster class (and doesn't pick Arcane Archer or Eldritch Knight as a subclass), their casting abilities will also be the same at level 20 as they were at level 1, because they never decided to invest into improving them. If a character decides to forego any improvement to their defensive capabilities (no DEX ASI, no defensive feats, no pursuing better gear, no getting a defensive fighting style, etc.), then yeah, the only improvement they'll see is the one offered by a bigger HP pool.
There is no "inconsistency", by the way. There's a discrepancy between what the game describes and what you feel should be true. In this game, children throwing stones can hurt an Adult White Dragon. You believe they shouldn't. So either accept that this is not the game you wish it were, or tweak the rules to better suit your idea of how it should be. =)
A lvl 20 fighter won't turn into a better spellcaster because he never cast spells. He is in melee fights most of the time. Last time I checked, that involves dodging, parrying and blocking incoming attacks. Cale should definitely have more practice at this than Borg.
And the inconsistency is when we describe HP loss as spending effort to avoid it. I have no idea how you think it's okay to say that "you overexerted your arm to completely block that attack. oh, by the way, youre poisoned."
A lvl 20 fighter won't turn into a better spellcaster because he never cast spells. He is in melee fights most of the time. Last time I checked, that involves dodging, parrying and blocking incoming attacks. Cale should definitely have more practice at this than Borg.
Fighting in melee CAN involve dodging, parrying, and blocking, but it can also not, if the Fighter's not worried about incoming damage and just "fights through the pain". Also, fighting at range does not involve dodging, parrying, and blocking, at least not as much. And "practice" does not directly translate to "improvement" in this game. Your Fighter might get the Magic Initiate Feat, and "practice" his cantrip all day long for a year, and not get any better at casting.
And the inconsistency is when we describe HP loss as spending effort to avoid it. I have no idea how you think it's okay to say that "you overexerted your arm to completely block that attack. oh, by the way, youre poisoned."
I probably wouldn't. HPs are an abstraction, representing not only actual damage, and not only effort expended to avoid damage, but a combination of all those factors already described, plus some hand-waving in the interest of fluidity and simplicity. In that case, I would probably not describe it as "you overexerted your arm to completely block that attack, oh, by the way youre poisoned", but maybe "you blocked the brunt of the attack, but still managed to get nicked by the blade, and through sheer force managed to stave off most of the effects of the poison, but not all".
I don't think there's anything wrong with what you're suggesting, if I understand correctly that you're suggesting a more realistic approach to hit avoidance and damage mitigation. It's just not how this game works, and I prefer how this game works, to more realistic approaches. (I'm reminded of MERP, where you could very literally be killed, at any level, by a thrown rock. It required two very high d100 rolls, including one of them exactly max, but it could still happen. Most hits inflicted long-lasting consequences, like reduced movement due to torn ligaments in the leg, permanent penalties to perception and accuracy due to missing eyes, etc. It was a beautiful system, very close to reality, but I hated it. It didn't feel heroic at all.)
Even if you give the 20th level fighter a significantly higher AC, you still have natural 20 always hits so you will always have this problem unless you change that.
There are a lot of different combat systems out there. They range from simple to complex, from simplistic to supposedly realistic, from fun to play to virtually unplayable. Choose the one you like. I like the Vitality/Wounds type system myself. A variant of natural 20 is that it becomes an open-ended roll. You can determine hit location. These all add complexity and usually slow down combat. In some systems, a 1 minute fight could take an hour of real time. Most players find that boring.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I had a discussion (that partly turned into arguing, because some people kept bringing up unrelated examples to the topic) about AC, and I want to see what you guys think about this too.
Here's what I thought:
A level 1 PC fighter (Now named Borg) with the same gear (Please don't make me have to repeat this 3 times again) as a level 20 PC fighter (Hencefort called Cale) will have the same chances of dodging/blocking/parrying an attack from a goblin. Shouldn't Cale be experienced enough in combat to make it really difficult for the goblin to hit him? He is practically a living legend, and yet a goblin is able to injure him.
Sure, Cale can take a lot more hits than Borg because of more HP, but they are still getting the same stab on the same place from the same dagger. NOTE: I am talking about the chances of getting hit and thus losing HP, not the lethality of the encounter itself. Please do not forget this either. Also, I will talk more about HP later, put this matter aside until then.
To reflect Cale's vast experience in fighting, I think his AC should increase as he levels (Not by ridiculous amounts, nor by negligible numbers). The higher level enemies should also get a higher attack modifier, to reflect their experience in combat. If both sides are similiarly experienced/leveled and gets a +10 increase to both their attacks and ACs, then the chances of hitting and getting hit is still the same as before, the only time the difference would show is if a master fights against a novice. A master is faster and more accurate with their attacks, as shown in their proficiency increase. However, their defences stays the same. I feel like this doesn't properly reflect their skill differences.
Cue irrelevant arguments (and some salt, sorry about that):
Yes, all of that was actual arguments I got in that discussion I mentioned. I answered some of them in the same way as here.
So, continuing on from the salt.
All of this that I mentioned before applies only to when you actually get hit. If the DM uses HP as stamina and describes it as "You block the strike with your shield, but the force of the attack leaves your arm quivering." or "The mace hits your side pretty hard and it knocks all the air out of your lungs. You feel nauseous and dizzy as you rise up from the hit.", then I would have no problem with it, since Borg using 50% of his stamina to block an attack while Cale is using 5% of his stamina to block the same strike (due to more effective movements) is very reasonable. However, every DM I have been with uses HP as "meat points", and every HP loss is a direct hit on your body. I've even seen some cases where a character gets a sword right through his stomach and still has over 50% of his HP. This is why I like the vitality variant rule, since HP loss isn't actually any direct hits on you, whilst vitality damage is.
Well, thinking about it, I think I'm more at odds with how most DMs describe HP loss rather than the AC system in itself. There are still some small inconsistencies even if the DM did describe HP loss as stamina loss, but they're small enough for me to overlook them without minding too much. It is a game after all, and we've passed the 'certain level of realism' requirement that I have for games.
For those extra interested in these inconsistencies: If you hit someone with poison dagger, will they get poisoned even it is described as "parried"? Or is it a small scratch? But if it was, then you wouldn't lose that much HP from the dagger itself. And if you describe it as a full hit, then we're just going back to the start. We also have the issue that Borg's and Cale's chance for completely dodging an attack is still the same (chance for 0 HP loss), even though Cale should be better at dodging than Borg.
There's no doubt that, in our real world, a more accomplished warrior will more easily evade blows landing on them.
However, Dungeons & Dragons uses a simplified combat model, to allow the game to flow quickly.
There are certainly other TTRPG available that have much more complex models for combat, but D&D is simpler.
As characters advance in levels their ability to survive and defend themselves grows through a single mechanic - hit points. Hit points is a fairly absurd mechanic if you analyse it - it's absurd that a 10th level fighter can survive several point-blank crossbow bolts to the face. Hit points represent a more abstract mechanism though, of luck and skill reducing the impact of attacks.
In your example, maybe Borg has 10 hit points and Cale has 200 hit points. The 1d6+2 attack from that goblin is life threatening for Borg. A couple of good attacks from that goblin can take him down. Cale isn't so worried - he knows that his experience will allow him to easily avoid any real danger from the goblin.
Pun-loving nerd | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
Also in many cases a character *will* increase AC as they advance levels. All classes have different methods for that, but just for a fighter the options include: ASI increase to dexterity, Defence fighting style (taken second as champion or brute), evasive footwork (battle master), warding maneuver (cavalier), eldrich knight defensive magics, feats like defensive duelist or dual wielder. That stuff, plus the mentioned abstract nature of hit points thoroughly encompasses the difference in skill level between these two beings.
The joys of abstract models trying to model something we can relate to. Or not relate to.
This is how I think of it; and it is much more in line with your thinking of vitality points.
In this case, the expertise of the higher level fighter is represented by the higher Hit Point pool. So a dagger has the same probability to landing a blow in both fighter's cases. But the experienced fighters "damage" is probably not even a scratch, it's a more of a bruise. After 20 of those bruises, he's slowing down and is getting cuts. 20 more and he's slower and bleeding badly.
For the lower level fighter, that dagger could be a major hit under the arm to the brachial artery. It represents half his health, not a bruise because he didn't turn his torso to deflect the the hit with his armor, so it would only be a bruise.
Could have Dnd made AC scale with proficiency bonus? Sure, but then to make it equal (a stab wound is a stab wound) the hit points should be static and/or far lower.
Super Realism isn't always fun or fast. So compromises are made with abstraction. Bottom line still is to have fun without getting into fight about mechanics. The monsters are the bad guys, not the other players :)
I agree with you that hit points are a measure of how much effort it took to not actually be stabbed to death with a deadly weapon, and every DM you have played with have been wrong (in my opinion).
I am one with the Force. The Force is with me.
There's two good reasons why AC works this way:
That aside HP is effectively stamina combined with luck and determination. The combat chapter makes it clear that the assumption is that you only suffer fatal injuries when dropped to 0 HP. Cale is in fact much better at not getting stabbed than Borg; he's just not untouchable. Poisons vary in potency a lot and many aren't fast-acting enough to kill or knock you out the very instant it enters the bloodstream so I don't see why you have a problem with the poisoned dagger example.
Hm, I thought I already mentioned this as examples. I know I wrote it at some point, but I guess I backspaced through it and forgot to write it on again. Thanks for bringing it up again.
I was thinking that what you mention in particular is currently the best way we have to reflect defensive ability increase, just that characters has to go specific routes to gain anything out from it, while I think the AC gain should be gained no matter which subclass you go. I also realise that I had written something like ‘’A character’s offensive ability increases with levels, as shown in their proficiency, and I think something similiar should apply to their defensive abilities too’’, but that thought also got lost somewhere when I was writing this.
Yup, the game mechanics definitely flows better with less numbers to keep track of. This was just an idea I had, to make it more realistic. Like a suggestion to a variant rule, maybe?
And yeah, a 10th level fighter taking several bolts through his face is definitely weird, if a DM described it as that every time he got hit for a max damage on non-crits, I’d start to wonder how he’s imagining things. This is what I meant when I said that Cale uses 5% of his stamina to defend himself from an attack when taking a HP loss, instead of describing it as actually getting a new hole in his body. It’s just that I’ve never seen any DMs describe it in that way.
Yeah, too much mechanics will just slow things down, and I'm not saying to eliminate the chances of taking any hits at all. There would still be a possibility, just much less likely depending on the level difference. A group of hundred goblins will still be able to take down Cale due to the sheer number of attacks each turn, but it will be much more likely that Cale will slaughter half of them before that happens, and this really depicts the impression of the "unkillable monster" standing in the middle of a bloody battlefield, surrounded by corpses.
Players will always have the chance of taking down an enemy no matter its strength, I just think it's far easier to do so than it should be. If a hundred children used slings on an adult white dragon, it'd take around 30 damage of its 200 max HP. Isn't that a bit much? It's kinda unepic that an adult dragon, the epitome of strength, should get heavily injured by a bunch of children, isnt it? These things should be able to threathen entire armies, yet they have a 15% chance to be damaged by a pebble flung by a child. It is much more realistic (as realistic as we can with a dragon, at least) that most of the pebbles bounces off its scales, and that maybe 1 of the hundred pebbles hits an open wound that the dragon has. Sure, the children could aim for that wound specifically, that would mean that they have enough combat experience to find and aim for weak points. If that's the case, their attack modifier would increase to reflect this.
As for the poison thing, I mean the chances of getting hit by a poison dagger in the first place. Cale should be better at avoiding stabs than Borg, but they still have the same chances of getting hit with the AC system. If Borg uses 25% of his max HP to avoid a poison dagger attack, then it is reasonable that he got nicked by it, but is it still as reasonable to say that Cale used 2% of his HP to completely block the attack, yet he still gets poisoned? Ignore saving throws, that happens after they actually get into contact with the poison.
That's assuming Cale is only fighting goblins, and that the goblins are fighting fair. Just throw in some higher CR monsters that can hold Cale's attention for longer than 1 round, and suddenly a dozen goblin archers behind 3/4 cover aren't a joke any more.
The dragon isn't heavily injured. At best it's got some mild bruises. It could walk it off after a short rest and still have hit dice to spare. Never mind the fact that a dragon has no reason to actually get within the normal range of a sling when it can just do flyby attacks with its breath weapon.
Cale didn't completely block the attack, he got scratched by the dagger. That kind of thing can happen if someone gets the jump on Cale or Cale is distracted fighting multiple people.
Basically no good DM and/or player would let a character have the same AC it started with unless that was not the character's concern.
Yeah, that is only if the goblins are fighting fair. That's what I'm talking about. If they were fairly fighting each other, then goblins should have a very hard time hitting Cale compared to hitting Borg, but they don't because of how AC works.
And yes, there are some bruises on the dragon. I am comparing it to a level 1 wizard taking 1 damage. I'm saying that this shouldn't be happening due to how well the dragon scales protects the dragon, and because the children aren't trained soldiers. It is comparable to the wizard taking 1 damage from an infant throwing a punch at him. At least I think the power difference between the children and an adult dragon should be as big as a level 1 wizard and an infant. A dragon is an epic encounter because it is extremely strong, and it undermines its whole "top of the food chain" reputation if a group of children can harm it.
Yes, you are saying that Cale didn't block the dagger. He got scratched by it. We already agreed that he would be better at dodging stabs than Borg too, right? Yet they both have the same chances of being scratched. This is the inconsistency I am talking about.
The only way AC increases is through armor or specific feats, ASI or fighting styles. None of it changes because the character gets better at defending themselves. Their HP changes, but that's a little different as I've explained.
Have you considered that feats, ASIs, and fighting styles IS the character getting better at defending themselves?
And if a character doesn't pick any of those, is his defensive abilities the same as a level 1 even though he is level 20?
Hit points... that is literally everything.
If a Fighter never multiclasses into a caster class (and doesn't pick Arcane Archer or Eldritch Knight as a subclass), their casting abilities will also be the same at level 20 as they were at level 1, because they never decided to invest into improving them. If a character decides to forego any improvement to their defensive capabilities (no DEX ASI, no defensive feats, no pursuing better gear, no getting a defensive fighting style, etc.), then yeah, the only improvement they'll see is the one offered by a bigger HP pool.
There is no "inconsistency", by the way. There's a discrepancy between what the game describes and what you feel should be true. In this game, children throwing stones can hurt an Adult White Dragon. You believe they shouldn't. So either accept that this is not the game you wish it were, or tweak the rules to better suit your idea of how it should be. =)
A lvl 20 fighter won't turn into a better spellcaster because he never cast spells. He is in melee fights most of the time. Last time I checked, that involves dodging, parrying and blocking incoming attacks. Cale should definitely have more practice at this than Borg.
And the inconsistency is when we describe HP loss as spending effort to avoid it. I have no idea how you think it's okay to say that "you overexerted your arm to completely block that attack. oh, by the way, youre poisoned."
Fighting in melee CAN involve dodging, parrying, and blocking, but it can also not, if the Fighter's not worried about incoming damage and just "fights through the pain". Also, fighting at range does not involve dodging, parrying, and blocking, at least not as much. And "practice" does not directly translate to "improvement" in this game. Your Fighter might get the Magic Initiate Feat, and "practice" his cantrip all day long for a year, and not get any better at casting.
I probably wouldn't. HPs are an abstraction, representing not only actual damage, and not only effort expended to avoid damage, but a combination of all those factors already described, plus some hand-waving in the interest of fluidity and simplicity. In that case, I would probably not describe it as "you overexerted your arm to completely block that attack, oh, by the way youre poisoned", but maybe "you blocked the brunt of the attack, but still managed to get nicked by the blade, and through sheer force managed to stave off most of the effects of the poison, but not all".
I don't think there's anything wrong with what you're suggesting, if I understand correctly that you're suggesting a more realistic approach to hit avoidance and damage mitigation. It's just not how this game works, and I prefer how this game works, to more realistic approaches. (I'm reminded of MERP, where you could very literally be killed, at any level, by a thrown rock. It required two very high d100 rolls, including one of them exactly max, but it could still happen. Most hits inflicted long-lasting consequences, like reduced movement due to torn ligaments in the leg, permanent penalties to perception and accuracy due to missing eyes, etc. It was a beautiful system, very close to reality, but I hated it. It didn't feel heroic at all.)
Even if you give the 20th level fighter a significantly higher AC, you still have natural 20 always hits so you will always have this problem unless you change that.
There are a lot of different combat systems out there. They range from simple to complex, from simplistic to supposedly realistic, from fun to play to virtually unplayable. Choose the one you like. I like the Vitality/Wounds type system myself. A variant of natural 20 is that it becomes an open-ended roll. You can determine hit location. These all add complexity and usually slow down combat. In some systems, a 1 minute fight could take an hour of real time. Most players find that boring.