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.
Question: Is this the exact same goblin in both scenarios?
Is Borg facing a goblin similar to his level? Is Cale facing a goblin similar to his level?
First i want to establish if the same level 1 to level 20 but equipment scenario here has applied to the Goblin as well.
Because if thats the case, it'd only make sense that as a goblin levels and survives (they have shorter lifespans, more predators, and typically get killed easier than most adventurers), it would only make sense that the goblin who has been leveling up, has been doing so at the expense of adventurers who have tried to slay him, or other such kinds of threats. A goblin won't go from a lvl 1 goblin to lvl 20 goblin just from digging through trash and stealing and running and hiding. So, in his survival in these encounters, he has learned how other creatures fight Goblins when the fight goblins, and would therefore be experienced enough in combat, to counter the counter measures used against most goblins. A Level 1 goblin, would not have those same combat experiences. (just like a level 1 adventurer vs a level 20 adventurer).
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.
Question: Is this the exact same goblin in both scenarios?
Yes, Borg is facing a common goblin. Yes, Cale is also facing the very same goblin. The goblin has the same equipment in both cases. The goblin does not get any stronger or weaker when facing either.
So I'm basically saying this:
When attacking, Cale is more likely to hit the goblin, because he has higher proficiency bonus.
Cale is better than Borg in combat-related things.
Dodging, parrying and blocking is related to combat.
Therefore, Cale is better than Borg in defending too.
So the last point is not true in DnD, because Cale's AC never increases as he levels.
But he has higher HP to reflect this! So that last point IS true! And then there is Defensive Fighting st- Shut up, I already covered that.
He does. So let's assume that DM gave this goblin a Shortsword of Instant Death. If it hits you, you die. No saving throws. Let's say Borg has 16 AC from ring mail and shield. Cale has the same gear. The goblin has +0 attack modifiers. Goblin attacks Borg. Borg has 20% of instant death. Goblin attacks Cale. Cale has 20% of instant death. I thought you said that Cale IS better at defending than Borg?
So in order to better reflect the fact that Cale is superior to the goblin, I thought of giving both higher AC and attack modifiers to high level creatures. This won't affect a fight between two similiarly strong creatures because you still have the same chances of hitting if you get +10 attack and the enemy gets +10 to AC. Be very aware that I am not talking about extreme increases per level, and at no point is the high level completely immune to damage from low levels. Depending on the level difference, it may be as little as 5% change in attack and defence chances. In this example, Cale is an unparalleled master. A level 5 PC should only have around 5-10% less chance of being hit compared to Borg. Nat20's still exists after all. Miracles can happen.
So if you've read through all this, thanks for the time. I wrote another section about how to interpret HP, but I'll leave that aside, since I used the instant-death sword in the example. Feel free to disagree with me, but for gods sake, please stay on the actual topic of the hit chance, instead of bringing in everything that I've already said is excluded from this.
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.)
Yeah, I'm more of a realistic type player, for example if I was a DM and a fighter had magic initiate and only practiced magic all the time, I'd eventually make him pick up a class level in wizard. If a "fighter" only uses magic continuously for 5 levels (unless it's an eldricht knight), then he's not exactly a fighter anymore.
The thing with "blocked most of the attack, but still got a nick of the poisoned blade" only brings me back to the first point of higher level characters not being able to dodge as well as they should be able to.
In any case, think of this as me sharing an idea I had. Some people may decide to expand upon it and use it as a homebrew rule. I understand that this way makes it less likely for low lvl PCs to defeat high level enemies through normal and fair combat, but that happens rarely anyway (It's not that big of an AC increase if the enemy is only slightly stronger than you either). I haven't thought about how this would work with environmental damage, so there are still plenty of chances for lvl 1 PCs to be heroes.
You could design a system that increases defense but keeps hit points the same as you level up. You could make one that increases both as you level up. If you want to know why the creators decided to make it the way they did, you will have to ask them.
An advantage that I see from the current system is it easier to create and maintain balance when only two variables are changing (offense and hit points) rather than three (offense, defense and hit points). Does this create situations that don’t make perfect sense? Yes. If you are the DM, you are free to modify it however you want but I’d be careful because your changes might have unintended consequences.
I don't know why you are so hung up on the fact that a fighter who did nothing to raise his AC, doesn't have a higher AC.
This is the way the game is balanced. In order to improve your Armor Class, you usually have improve your armor.
Combat is simplified in order to speed up the game. In older versions of the game (I'm told), there was a handy chart were 3 or 4 handy charts you needed to consult with every attack that compared attacker class levels and weapons with defender class levels and armor to determine what you had to roll in order to hit. Each round of combat took half an hour, but it was detailed and realistic.
If you played AD&D with the adjustments each weapon had based on the armor you were attacking, it was kind of ridiculous. I think most people just ignored that table.
if Cale and Borg are standing there in heavy plate...why do you think Cale would be more likely to dodge a crossbow bolt? feel free to factor in paralyzed or surprised conditions. it just doesn't hold up that experience will change the characteristics of a ranged attack.
I am a "stamina = HP" guy, but I also factor in toughness as well blocks deflections and grazes. for instance a dwarf (in my imagination) can always but stabbed and hacked more than say an elf.
AC and the dice roll are factors to guide the story's narration. because it is about the story after all
Holy cow, if you want more crunch, play something else. There are games out there that have the detail you desire - skill vs. skill to hit, armor that reduces chance to be hit as well as absorbing some damage, different damage modifiers depending on source and hit location, difference between stun/stamina, and blood.
Some of the appeal of D&D is ease of play. So you have more abstract rules and "realism".
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
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.
Question: Is this the exact same goblin in both scenarios?
Yes, Borg is facing a common goblin. Yes, Cale is also facing the very same goblin. The goblin has the same equipment in both cases. The goblin does not get any stronger or weaker when facing either.
So I'm basically saying this:
When attacking, Cale is more likely to hit the goblin, because he has higher proficiency bonus.
Cale is better than Borg in combat-related things.
Dodging, parrying and blocking is related to combat.
Therefore, Cale is better than Borg in defending too.
So the last point is not true in DnD, because Cale's AC never increases as he levels.
The last point being: he is a living legend?
Alright. So, its the same goblin at X capability.
Borg and Cale have the same equipment. They are just different levels of experience.
ASI, feats, fighting styles and etc are not specifically what you want to discuss regarding the philosophy. Correct?
Borg and Cale have the same armor. Cale is significantly more experienced, better proficiencies etc.
So, let's go from there:
Cale is more apt to hit than Borg. true. Cale and Borg are apt to be hit at the same rate. Also true given the information and scenario. Why is this is the question:
The information that is not being provided. Is Cale's choices while leveling up. So, I'll tie into your HP/vitality/stamina/whatever philsophy here. Cale is choosing to instead of working on his defense of being harder to hit (better AC), but to instead be able to take more hits, or fight for longer instead (HP increases). For Cale to have better AC with the exact same equipment, he would have to actively work on AC related things, vs fighting longer, and taking hits, and not tiring out, which are more HP related things.
Given the information about Cale having higher proficiency bonus, and its easier for Cale to hit the Goblin than Borg. You have painted the picture, that Cale has spent all of his time working on how to be a more effective attacker and fighter in that sense. Than in how to just not be attacked at all.
As the people taking less imagininative and more RAW approach to you saying "the game mechanics just don't work that way, find a different game if"... from RAW they're right, but you're not asking about RAW specifically... you're more asking a philosophical and creative question, that could be used in some kind of homebrew campaign you might set up, correct?
I am playing off that assumption, and the information you have given:.
Cale, has focused more so on offense, and how to take a hit. rather than focusing on how to not be hit at all. In the scenario you paint, mayhaps there'd be some way, forgoing hit dice, and hp for a level up or 2 completely to gain 1 AC permanently instead. This might satisfy one path for Cale and Borg not being on the same level in terms of being hit by the same exact goblin if they are using the same equipment.
Another thing you could do, is maybe give weapons/armors some kind of "control authority" like in Sword Art Alicization. And make it to where not just any level 1 and level 20 guy can both wear the same adamantine plate armor, or both wield the same Dwarven thrower, etc.
Thoughts to it in that regard, that Cale hasn't tried to focus on being hit less, but how to hit more himself: proficiency aka to hit, going up. Worked more on being more persuasive/intimidating/athletic/acrobatic/etc: Proficiency going up. And how to take hits, or recover from being tired more: Hit points and hit dice going up. As opposed to (a mechanic not in 5e RAW), as opposed to improving instead their "speed" or "AC" or "Initiative" instead of proficiency/hp/hit dice/spell slots etc.
Philosophically. This is all I can come up with for your scenario.
You could design a system that increases defense but keeps hit points the same as you level up. You could make one that increases both as you level up. If you want to know why the creators decided to make it the way they did, you will have to ask them.
An advantage that I see from the current system is it easier to create and maintain balance when only two variables are changing (offense and hit points) rather than three (offense, defense and hit points). Does this create situations that don’t make perfect sense? Yes. If you are the DM, you are free to modify it however you want but I’d be careful because your changes might have unintended consequences.
Ah. I see you and I were on the same page. and you had already said it. I apologize for repeating you essentially.
He does. So let's assume that DM gave this goblin a Shortsword of Instant Death. If it hits you, you die. No saving throws. Let's say Borg has 16 AC from ring mail and shield. Cale has the same gear. The goblin has +0 attack modifiers. Goblin attacks Borg. Borg has 20% of instant death. Goblin attacks Cale. Cale has 20% of instant death. I thought you said that Cale IS better at defending than Borg?
You can come up with arbitrarily contrived situations to poke holes in the rules, but you're missing the point. The rules aren't there to perfectly simulate reality. They're there to make D&D a game instead of just ad-hoc story-telling and to be as simple and unobtrusive as possible. They work well most of the time and that's what actually matters. No DM's going to give a goblin a Shortsword of Instant Death. Do you have a real examples (i.e. something that happened during a game with other players) where the AC system produced anti-climatic or unsatisfying story moments?
He does. So let's assume that DM gave this goblin a Shortsword of Instant Death. If it hits you, you die. No saving throws. Let's say Borg has 16 AC from ring mail and shield. Cale has the same gear. The goblin has +0 attack modifiers. Goblin attacks Borg. Borg has 20% of instant death. Goblin attacks Cale. Cale has 20% of instant death. I thought you said that Cale IS better at defending than Borg?
You can come up with arbitrarily contrived situations to poke holes in the rules, but you're missing the point. The rules aren't there to perfectly simulate reality. They're there to make D&D a game instead of just ad-hoc story-telling and to be as simple and unobtrusive as possible. They work well most of the time and that's what actually matters. No DM's going to give a goblin a Shortsword of Instant Death. Do you have a real examples (i.e. something that happened during a game with other players) where the AC system produced anti-climatic or unsatisfying story moments?
You’ve never seen goblins stealing things? Rummaging corpses? Wagons of cargo?
goblin with a vorpal sword isn’t that weird. It’s very feasible if the situation is right.
or if you have a evil party member that gives magic items to goblins/bugbears/lizardfolk/etc.
Doesn't have to be a vorpal sword or an overpowered item either, it can be a poisoned/diseased weapon too, which should be common enough among goblins (well, doesn't have to be a goblin either, I just used that as an example. Could be a royal guard captain with a magic weapon too.). Any weapon with an on-hit effect.
Anyway, the likeliness of facing these opponents isn't the topic of this. This is about the chance of getting hit/taking a HP loss by the same opponent. I used the Instant Death Sword to show that the damage inflicted doesn't matter, only the chance of getting hit does.
I don't know why you are so hung up on the fact that a fighter who did nothing to raise his AC, doesn't have a higher AC.
This is the way the game is balanced. In order to improve your Armor Class, you usually have improve your armor.
Combat is simplified in order to speed up the game. In older versions of the game (I'm told), there was a handy chart were 3 or 4 handy charts you needed to consult with every attack that compared attacker class levels and weapons with defender class levels and armor to determine what you had to roll in order to hit. Each round of combat took half an hour, but it was detailed and realistic.
Am I hung up by it when I simply wish to have a discussion about an idea that I had?
Even if someone doesn't specialize within something, it doesn't mean that they can't get better at it. A pacifist character who only defended himself in battle will still get the proficiency increase for his attacks at higher levels.
Yes, this is the way the game is balanced. I think this idea for a slight change would make it more realistic. I'm very well aware that older versions were more complicated, I've even read somewhere that earlier editions had armors with 3 different AC scores, depending on which damage type it got attacked with. This isn't 3 or 4 extra pages though, it is just 2 numbers that changes once every few levels for PCs while it's a static number for each monster. I'm not thinking of making anyone use this method either (the entire monster manual would have to be rewritten to update all the enemies' new AC and attack modifier), it is simply an idea I had that I want to talk about.
The topic that is most brought up against this idea is HP. Some of us (the others didn't actually say anything about it) went with that HP loss should be described as stamina (like losing your breath after taking the impact from an attack while not taking any actual injuries). Being at low HP would mean that you are tired, and that increases your chances of making a mistake in battle and taking a fatal hit too because of it, so that's all right.
I did however make the argument that the character's chances of actually being hit still stays the same, and brought up the example of Instant Death Sword (or other weapons with saving throw effects), and that's where we are at now.
The information that is not being provided. Is Cale's choices while leveling up. So, I'll tie into your HP/vitality/stamina/whatever philsophy here. Cale is choosing to instead of working on his defense of being harder to hit (better AC), but to instead be able to take more hits, or fight for longer instead (HP increases). For Cale to have better AC with the exact same equipment, he would have to actively work on AC related things, vs fighting longer, and taking hits, and not tiring out, which are more HP related things.
As the people taking less imagininative and more RAW approach to you saying "the game mechanics just don't work that way, find a different game if"... from RAW they're right, but you're not asking about RAW specifically... you're more asking a philosophical and creative question, that could be used in some kind of homebrew campaign you might set up, correct?
I am playing off that assumption, and the information you have given:.
Cale, has focused more so on offense, and how to take a hit. rather than focusing on how to not be hit at all. In the scenario you paint, mayhaps there'd be some way, forgoing hit dice, and hp for a level up or 2 completely to gain 1 AC permanently instead. This might satisfy one path for Cale and Borg not being on the same level in terms of being hit by the same exact goblin if they are using the same equipment.
Another thing you could do, is maybe give weapons/armors some kind of "control authority" like in Sword Art Alicization. And make it to where not just any level 1 and level 20 guy can both wear the same adamantine plate armor, or both wield the same Dwarven thrower, etc.
I'll take the liberty of deleting some parts of the post, it's just going to take too much space if we keep it.
Yes, you're right in that this is an idea I had, and I'm not actually trying to change anything. If someone wishes to use this as an alternate rule in their homebrew campaign, then sure (This is still very incomplete though, definitely needs more work).
Cale is level 20, in most campaigns, level 20 PCs can fight against world threats like the Tarrasque, or even gods themselves. You could call that something only living legends do, so yeah.
I didn't specify any of Cale's choices when leveling since he doesn't specialize in offense nor defense, he only gets better at fighting in general. Let's say he did specialize in only offense and forgot about trying to avoid damage, he will still have a proficiency increase, and the higher proficiency will also affect some of his saving throws, which shows us that he does get better in defending himself even though he supposedly specialized in offense. He doesn't actively work on getting better at these saving throws either, it simply happens due to his experience.
I like the idea of trading a hit dice on levelup for +1 permanent AC that you and Trirhabda thought of, it's interesting. Don't think it would work with the current game rules (well, my idea won't either work either, but they're both ideas) without major changes, but it's something that we can talk about. Like, would the PC get saving throw increases from this too, or just AC?
The second example you had, I haven't seen/read Alicization, but do you mean something like having level requirements for attuning to equipment/items? Like "Your mind is not mature enough to understand the true power of this weapon"? That's also a pretty interesting idea. Heck, I might even use that sometime.
if Cale and Borg are standing there in heavy plate...why do you think Cale would be more likely to dodge a crossbow bolt? feel free to factor in paralyzed or surprised conditions. it just doesn't hold up that experience will change the characteristics of a ranged attack.
I am a "stamina = HP" guy, but I also factor in toughness as well blocks deflections and grazes. for instance a dwarf (in my imagination) can always but stabbed and hacked more than say an elf.
AC and the dice roll are factors to guide the story's narration. because it is about the story after all
Since Cale is more experienced, he will also naturally have a wider view of the combat field, since he knows that having tunnel vision on your enemy is a bad idea. Therefore he will have a higher chance of seeing the bushes on the other side of the battlefield rustle, and he will instantly have a bad feeling about it (or he can notice that someone is aiming at him, either by seeing them or by pure intuition that has been honed on battlefields). Borg doesn't know any of this yet due to his lack of experience and is only focusing on his enemy, so he is more likely to have no idea that he is being aimed at until he is hit. Even if he has been told to pay attention to his surroundings, he won't be as good as Cale without any practice.
It doesn't change the characteristics of the attack itself, their reaction to the attack changes. One doesn't even know the attack is coming, while the other one realises it early enough to do something about it. It's like having map awareness in MOBAs, a skilled player is more likely to be better at this compared to an unskilled player. In the same way, a veteran is more likely to pay attention to his surroundings compared to a recruit. Even as players, if we have played a lot of DnD games and suddenly come across a treasure chest out in the open, we are more inclined to think that it's a mimic compared to someone who doesn't even know what a mimic is.
If it was one level difference between Borg and Cale, then they will (on average) notice it around the same time and they're both as likely to be hit, but they're 19 levels apart, so this will show how much more experienced Cale is compared to Borg.
Just play something else. Instead of trying so hard to mash D&D into what you want, just play a game that has everything you want already built in. You'll probably have more fun =)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
Just play something else. Instead of trying so hard to mash D&D into what you want, just play a game that has everything you want already built in. You'll probably have more fun =)
You see, this is exactly the kind of unconstructive statement you should avoid saying in discussions like this. Do you say that to everyone who wants to have homebrew rules? If everyone were denying ideas by saying stuff like that, we would still be at 1st edition. A game evolves because people have ideas on how to handle things differently. It started with someone thinking "oh, the rules are too complicated, let's make it simpler!", and that's how we got to 5th edition. If everyone at that time said "nah, the rules are fine as they are, go play something else if it doesn't perfectly fit your tastes", then we wouldn't have 5th edition right now. This here is a case of "We went too simple, turn back a little". Even if this specific idea isn't a better way to do it, you can still build on top of this. They didn't get to the rules of 5th edition by writing down the first ideas they had. It started as an idea, and then they expanded and modified it until it was good enough for its pourposes. Of course, they had a lot of scrapped ideas too, and chances are that they even had a similiar idea to this that was scrapped, but this is exactly why we are discussing this, to find out if this would work or not and why it would or wouldn't.
The second example you had, I haven't seen/read Alicization, but do you mean something like having level requirements for attuning to equipment/items? Like "Your mind is not mature enough to understand the true power of this weapon"? That's also a pretty interesting idea. Heck, I might even use that sometime.
That is a good enough grasp of the concept without seeing the show yes. level/stat/proficiency/etc.
As to the saving throws as well as AC. I'd personally, prob skew that more on the side of like "milestone" where after having done X amount of saving throws of it, it will increase. You know what I mean?
for example: A Strength saving throw to resist grappled. You don't get better at escaping wrestling grapple holds, without actually being IN the wrestling grapple holds to escape from.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blank
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Question:
Is this the exact same goblin in both scenarios?
Is Borg facing a goblin similar to his level? Is Cale facing a goblin similar to his level?
First i want to establish if the same level 1 to level 20 but equipment scenario here has applied to the Goblin as well.
Because if thats the case, it'd only make sense that as a goblin levels and survives (they have shorter lifespans, more predators, and typically get killed easier than most adventurers), it would only make sense that the goblin who has been leveling up, has been doing so at the expense of adventurers who have tried to slay him, or other such kinds of threats. A goblin won't go from a lvl 1 goblin to lvl 20 goblin just from digging through trash and stealing and running and hiding. So, in his survival in these encounters, he has learned how other creatures fight Goblins when the fight goblins, and would therefore be experienced enough in combat, to counter the counter measures used against most goblins. A Level 1 goblin, would not have those same combat experiences. (just like a level 1 adventurer vs a level 20 adventurer).
Blank
Yes, Borg is facing a common goblin. Yes, Cale is also facing the very same goblin. The goblin has the same equipment in both cases. The goblin does not get any stronger or weaker when facing either.
So I'm basically saying this:
So the last point is not true in DnD, because Cale's AC never increases as he levels.
He does. So let's assume that DM gave this goblin a Shortsword of Instant Death. If it hits you, you die. No saving throws.
Let's say Borg has 16 AC from ring mail and shield. Cale has the same gear. The goblin has +0 attack modifiers.
Goblin attacks Borg. Borg has 20% of instant death.
Goblin attacks Cale. Cale has 20% of instant death.
I thought you said that Cale IS better at defending than Borg?
So in order to better reflect the fact that Cale is superior to the goblin, I thought of giving both higher AC and attack modifiers to high level creatures.
This won't affect a fight between two similiarly strong creatures because you still have the same chances of hitting if you get +10 attack and the enemy gets +10 to AC.
Be very aware that I am not talking about extreme increases per level, and at no point is the high level completely immune to damage from low levels. Depending on the level difference, it may be as little as 5% change in attack and defence chances. In this example, Cale is an unparalleled master. A level 5 PC should only have around 5-10% less chance of being hit compared to Borg. Nat20's still exists after all. Miracles can happen.
So if you've read through all this, thanks for the time. I wrote another section about how to interpret HP, but I'll leave that aside, since I used the instant-death sword in the example. Feel free to disagree with me, but for gods sake, please stay on the actual topic of the hit chance, instead of bringing in everything that I've already said is excluded from this.
Yeah, I'm more of a realistic type player, for example if I was a DM and a fighter had magic initiate and only practiced magic all the time, I'd eventually make him pick up a class level in wizard. If a "fighter" only uses magic continuously for 5 levels (unless it's an eldricht knight), then he's not exactly a fighter anymore.
The thing with "blocked most of the attack, but still got a nick of the poisoned blade" only brings me back to the first point of higher level characters not being able to dodge as well as they should be able to.
In any case, think of this as me sharing an idea I had. Some people may decide to expand upon it and use it as a homebrew rule. I understand that this way makes it less likely for low lvl PCs to defeat high level enemies through normal and fair combat, but that happens rarely anyway (It's not that big of an AC increase if the enemy is only slightly stronger than you either). I haven't thought about how this would work with environmental damage, so there are still plenty of chances for lvl 1 PCs to be heroes.
You could design a system that increases defense but keeps hit points the same as you level up. You could make one that increases both as you level up. If you want to know why the creators decided to make it the way they did, you will have to ask them.
An advantage that I see from the current system is it easier to create and maintain balance when only two variables are changing (offense and hit points) rather than three (offense, defense and hit points). Does this create situations that don’t make perfect sense? Yes. If you are the DM, you are free to modify it however you want but I’d be careful because your changes might have unintended consequences.
I don't know why you are so hung up on the fact that a fighter who did nothing to raise his AC, doesn't have a higher AC.
This is the way the game is balanced. In order to improve your Armor Class, you usually have improve your armor.
Combat is simplified in order to speed up the game. In older versions of the game (I'm told), there
was a handy chartwere 3 or 4 handy charts you needed to consult with every attack that compared attacker class levels and weapons with defender class levels and armor to determine what you had to roll in order to hit. Each round of combat took half an hour, but it was detailed and realistic.If you played AD&D with the adjustments each weapon had based on the armor you were attacking, it was kind of ridiculous. I think most people just ignored that table.
if Cale and Borg are standing there in heavy plate...why do you think Cale would be more likely to dodge a crossbow bolt? feel free to factor in paralyzed or surprised conditions. it just doesn't hold up that experience will change the characteristics of a ranged attack.
I am a "stamina = HP" guy, but I also factor in toughness as well blocks deflections and grazes. for instance a dwarf (in my imagination) can always but stabbed and hacked more than say an elf.
AC and the dice roll are factors to guide the story's narration. because it is about the story after all
Jesus Saves!... Everyone else takes damage.
Holy cow, if you want more crunch, play something else. There are games out there that have the detail you desire - skill vs. skill to hit, armor that reduces chance to be hit as well as absorbing some damage, different damage modifiers depending on source and hit location, difference between stun/stamina, and blood.
Some of the appeal of D&D is ease of play. So you have more abstract rules and "realism".
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
The last point being: he is a living legend?
Alright. So, its the same goblin at X capability.
Borg and Cale have the same equipment. They are just different levels of experience.
ASI, feats, fighting styles and etc are not specifically what you want to discuss regarding the philosophy. Correct?
Borg and Cale have the same armor. Cale is significantly more experienced, better proficiencies etc.
So, let's go from there:
Cale is more apt to hit than Borg. true. Cale and Borg are apt to be hit at the same rate. Also true given the information and scenario. Why is this is the question:
The information that is not being provided. Is Cale's choices while leveling up. So, I'll tie into your HP/vitality/stamina/whatever philsophy here. Cale is choosing to instead of working on his defense of being harder to hit (better AC), but to instead be able to take more hits, or fight for longer instead (HP increases). For Cale to have better AC with the exact same equipment, he would have to actively work on AC related things, vs fighting longer, and taking hits, and not tiring out, which are more HP related things.
Given the information about Cale having higher proficiency bonus, and its easier for Cale to hit the Goblin than Borg. You have painted the picture, that Cale has spent all of his time working on how to be a more effective attacker and fighter in that sense. Than in how to just not be attacked at all.
As the people taking less imagininative and more RAW approach to you saying "the game mechanics just don't work that way, find a different game if"... from RAW they're right, but you're not asking about RAW specifically... you're more asking a philosophical and creative question, that could be used in some kind of homebrew campaign you might set up, correct?
I am playing off that assumption, and the information you have given:.
Cale, has focused more so on offense, and how to take a hit. rather than focusing on how to not be hit at all. In the scenario you paint, mayhaps there'd be some way, forgoing hit dice, and hp for a level up or 2 completely to gain 1 AC permanently instead. This might satisfy one path for Cale and Borg not being on the same level in terms of being hit by the same exact goblin if they are using the same equipment.
Another thing you could do, is maybe give weapons/armors some kind of "control authority" like in Sword Art Alicization. And make it to where not just any level 1 and level 20 guy can both wear the same adamantine plate armor, or both wield the same Dwarven thrower, etc.
Thoughts to it in that regard, that Cale hasn't tried to focus on being hit less, but how to hit more himself: proficiency aka to hit, going up. Worked more on being more persuasive/intimidating/athletic/acrobatic/etc: Proficiency going up. And how to take hits, or recover from being tired more: Hit points and hit dice going up. As opposed to (a mechanic not in 5e RAW), as opposed to improving instead their "speed" or "AC" or "Initiative" instead of proficiency/hp/hit dice/spell slots etc.
Philosophically. This is all I can come up with for your scenario.
Blank
Ah. I see you and I were on the same page. and you had already said it. I apologize for repeating you essentially.
Blank
You can come up with arbitrarily contrived situations to poke holes in the rules, but you're missing the point. The rules aren't there to perfectly simulate reality. They're there to make D&D a game instead of just ad-hoc story-telling and to be as simple and unobtrusive as possible. They work well most of the time and that's what actually matters. No DM's going to give a goblin a Shortsword of Instant Death. Do you have a real examples (i.e. something that happened during a game with other players) where the AC system produced anti-climatic or unsatisfying story moments?
You’ve never seen goblins stealing things? Rummaging corpses? Wagons of cargo?
goblin with a vorpal sword isn’t that weird. It’s very feasible if the situation is right.
or if you have a evil party member that gives magic items to goblins/bugbears/lizardfolk/etc.
Blank
What?! You can just give goblins major magic items!
Oh yeah? JRR did...
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Doesn't have to be a vorpal sword or an overpowered item either, it can be a poisoned/diseased weapon too, which should be common enough among goblins (well, doesn't have to be a goblin either, I just used that as an example. Could be a royal guard captain with a magic weapon too.). Any weapon with an on-hit effect.
Anyway, the likeliness of facing these opponents isn't the topic of this. This is about the chance of getting hit/taking a HP loss by the same opponent. I used the Instant Death Sword to show that the damage inflicted doesn't matter, only the chance of getting hit does.
Am I hung up by it when I simply wish to have a discussion about an idea that I had?
Even if someone doesn't specialize within something, it doesn't mean that they can't get better at it. A pacifist character who only defended himself in battle will still get the proficiency increase for his attacks at higher levels.
Yes, this is the way the game is balanced. I think this idea for a slight change would make it more realistic. I'm very well aware that older versions were more complicated, I've even read somewhere that earlier editions had armors with 3 different AC scores, depending on which damage type it got attacked with. This isn't 3 or 4 extra pages though, it is just 2 numbers that changes once every few levels for PCs while it's a static number for each monster. I'm not thinking of making anyone use this method either (the entire monster manual would have to be rewritten to update all the enemies' new AC and attack modifier), it is simply an idea I had that I want to talk about.
The topic that is most brought up against this idea is HP. Some of us (the others didn't actually say anything about it) went with that HP loss should be described as stamina (like losing your breath after taking the impact from an attack while not taking any actual injuries). Being at low HP would mean that you are tired, and that increases your chances of making a mistake in battle and taking a fatal hit too because of it, so that's all right.
I did however make the argument that the character's chances of actually being hit still stays the same, and brought up the example of Instant Death Sword (or other weapons with saving throw effects), and that's where we are at now.
I'll take the liberty of deleting some parts of the post, it's just going to take too much space if we keep it.
Yes, you're right in that this is an idea I had, and I'm not actually trying to change anything. If someone wishes to use this as an alternate rule in their homebrew campaign, then sure (This is still very incomplete though, definitely needs more work).
Cale is level 20, in most campaigns, level 20 PCs can fight against world threats like the Tarrasque, or even gods themselves. You could call that something only living legends do, so yeah.
I didn't specify any of Cale's choices when leveling since he doesn't specialize in offense nor defense, he only gets better at fighting in general. Let's say he did specialize in only offense and forgot about trying to avoid damage, he will still have a proficiency increase, and the higher proficiency will also affect some of his saving throws, which shows us that he does get better in defending himself even though he supposedly specialized in offense. He doesn't actively work on getting better at these saving throws either, it simply happens due to his experience.
I like the idea of trading a hit dice on levelup for +1 permanent AC that you and Trirhabda thought of, it's interesting. Don't think it would work with the current game rules (well, my idea won't either work either, but they're both ideas) without major changes, but it's something that we can talk about. Like, would the PC get saving throw increases from this too, or just AC?
The second example you had, I haven't seen/read Alicization, but do you mean something like having level requirements for attuning to equipment/items? Like "Your mind is not mature enough to understand the true power of this weapon"? That's also a pretty interesting idea. Heck, I might even use that sometime.
Since Cale is more experienced, he will also naturally have a wider view of the combat field, since he knows that having tunnel vision on your enemy is a bad idea. Therefore he will have a higher chance of seeing the bushes on the other side of the battlefield rustle, and he will instantly have a bad feeling about it (or he can notice that someone is aiming at him, either by seeing them or by pure intuition that has been honed on battlefields). Borg doesn't know any of this yet due to his lack of experience and is only focusing on his enemy, so he is more likely to have no idea that he is being aimed at until he is hit. Even if he has been told to pay attention to his surroundings, he won't be as good as Cale without any practice.
It doesn't change the characteristics of the attack itself, their reaction to the attack changes. One doesn't even know the attack is coming, while the other one realises it early enough to do something about it. It's like having map awareness in MOBAs, a skilled player is more likely to be better at this compared to an unskilled player. In the same way, a veteran is more likely to pay attention to his surroundings compared to a recruit. Even as players, if we have played a lot of DnD games and suddenly come across a treasure chest out in the open, we are more inclined to think that it's a mimic compared to someone who doesn't even know what a mimic is.
If it was one level difference between Borg and Cale, then they will (on average) notice it around the same time and they're both as likely to be hit, but they're 19 levels apart, so this will show how much more experienced Cale is compared to Borg.
Just play something else. Instead of trying so hard to mash D&D into what you want, just play a game that has everything you want already built in. You'll probably have more fun =)
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
You see, this is exactly the kind of unconstructive statement you should avoid saying in discussions like this. Do you say that to everyone who wants to have homebrew rules? If everyone were denying ideas by saying stuff like that, we would still be at 1st edition. A game evolves because people have ideas on how to handle things differently. It started with someone thinking "oh, the rules are too complicated, let's make it simpler!", and that's how we got to 5th edition. If everyone at that time said "nah, the rules are fine as they are, go play something else if it doesn't perfectly fit your tastes", then we wouldn't have 5th edition right now. This here is a case of "We went too simple, turn back a little". Even if this specific idea isn't a better way to do it, you can still build on top of this. They didn't get to the rules of 5th edition by writing down the first ideas they had. It started as an idea, and then they expanded and modified it until it was good enough for its pourposes. Of course, they had a lot of scrapped ideas too, and chances are that they even had a similiar idea to this that was scrapped, but this is exactly why we are discussing this, to find out if this would work or not and why it would or wouldn't.
That is a good enough grasp of the concept without seeing the show yes. level/stat/proficiency/etc.
As to the saving throws as well as AC. I'd personally, prob skew that more on the side of like "milestone" where after having done X amount of saving throws of it, it will increase. You know what I mean?
for example: A Strength saving throw to resist grappled. You don't get better at escaping wrestling grapple holds, without actually being IN the wrestling grapple holds to escape from.
Blank