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.
You mean that Cale has a lot of experience in being grappled, and that is why he is better at it. Right?
Yes, this is very reasonable. Following the same logic, I think he should be better at completely avoiding incoming attacks (completely avoiding as in losing 0 HP) because he has a lot of experience in avoiding attacks too.
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.
You mean that Cale has a lot of experience in being grappled, and that is why he is better at it. Right?
Yes, this is very reasonable. Following the same logic, I think he should be better at completely avoiding incoming attacks (completely avoiding as in losing 0 HP) because he has a lot of experience in avoiding attacks too.
provided he has the experience in working on those specific things, yes.
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.
You mean that Cale has a lot of experience in being grappled, and that is why he is better at it. Right?
Yes, this is very reasonable. Following the same logic, I think he should be better at completely avoiding incoming attacks (completely avoiding as in losing 0 HP) because he has a lot of experience in avoiding attacks too.
provided he has the experience in working on those specific things, yes.
Won't he get this experience by simply being a fighter? He doesn't work specifically towards getting a better STR saving throw either, it just happened a lot over the course of his adventures.
provided he has the experience in working on those specific things, yes.
Won't he get this experience by simply being a fighter? He doesn't work specifically towards getting a better STR saving throw either, it just happened a lot over the course of his adventures.
Think of it this way: there are something's you get better at just by doing them (using your muscles efficiently, swinging a weapon smoothly), and some things you improve only by learning something new (reading the angle of an enemy's strike, making better use of your armor with less effort).
Having an attack miss you, or bounce off your armor is not something you get better at the more it happens, you have to learn new ways to make it happen more. Fighters get a lot of opportunities to learn to defend themselves better, but if they dont use those opportunities, their defense will stay as it was when they started.
Yes, a level 1 character and a level 20 character wearing plate armor and a shield would have the same AC. I understand your argument, why would it be just as easy to hit the novice as it is to hit the master? The simple answer is, It shouldn't and as long as people view Hit Points as physical damage to your character it will continue to defy logic. Hit points are the outlier, as long as people continue to view hit points as "meat points" it won't make sense. The increase in hit points is the defensive ability you are looking for, but you (and many others) need to readjust the thinking about hit points, how characters use them, and how they play a role in the game.
People view hit points many ways, but the most common is physical damage you take. This defies logic on the simple fact of how you regain hit points on short or long rest. In older editions hit points were the physical manifestation of your life essence and it took a long time to regain them. (example:)
In 2nd edition, it took 1 day of rest (light activity) to regain 1 hit point. Full bed rest, you could regain 3 hit points a day! For a complete week of bed rest only then could you add your constitution hit point bonus to the 21 hit points you healed. This is the rules manifestation of Hit points as physical health, hit point loss was blood loss.
In 5e we have characters regaining hit points at a near super human rate. They regain hit points through spending hit die on short rests and 8 hours of rest regains all their hit points. In 5e hit points are how "tough" you are in dangerous situations.
Using the 5e model, we see a shift from hit points being physical health to toughness. I describe it to my players as luck points and not health points.
Now back to the OP, if the goblin attacked the level one fighter and the level 20 fighter and rolls a natural 20, critical hit, for the goblin.
I would describe as the level 1 fighter tried to fend off the blow with his shield but the goblin had a better angle shoving his short sword into the crease in his armor striking a vital organ doing 12 hit points and knocking him unconscious, whereas critical hit on the level 20 fighter, the goblin's attack did 12 points of damage, it hit the same crease in his armor and scraped a sensitive part of his body, it hurt, but was in no way a mortal blow, just due to his increased hit point pool.
Or the level 1 fighter and the level 20 fighter are facing off against a giant. The giant attacks the level 1 fighter and hits, the 43 damage he takes from the giants club kills him outright and he is violently knocked across the field crushing him instantly. The giant attacks the level 20 fighter and hits, he takes the same 43 damage, instead of getting crushed instantly, however, the level 20 fighter angled his shield deflecting the brunt of the attack, he will be sore tomorrow and his ears are ringing, but he is alive and continues to fight, ( the hit points in that example was the extra defense that enabled him to redirect the attack, he took damage, damage that killed the low-level character, but the hit points, in this case, were his defense).
I don't have my characters getting roasted alive and losing their hair from dragons breath, if they make their save they ducked behind a rock, pillar, or dodged out of the way. Same with spells, perhaps they ducked under a table, their full plate armor protected them, or they threw their shield up in time. They took damage, the damage represents how well they avoided the attack, but they don't take physical (killing) damage until they get knocked unconscious in my games.
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.
You mean that Cale has a lot of experience in being grappled, and that is why he is better at it. Right?
Yes, this is very reasonable. Following the same logic, I think he should be better at completely avoiding incoming attacks (completely avoiding as in losing 0 HP) because he has a lot of experience in avoiding attacks too.
provided he has the experience in working on those specific things, yes.
Won't he get this experience by simply being a fighter? He doesn't work specifically towards getting a better STR saving throw either, it just happened a lot over the course of his adventures.
Yes and no.
There are fighters, that get in close, and swing their sword. and have a shield and do sword and board. Conceptually, he's working on very different things than a fighter using a 2-handed great sword, or a 2-handed Glaive. Additionally, unless he's deciding he wants to drop his weapons/shields, and wrestle the guy. or unless they are so much stronger than the opponent, that the opponent decides to wrestle them and sacrifice themselves essentially so their friends can take out the fighter. the fighter isn't really conceptually working on saving throws.
Now, if he's walking around, intentionally setting off booby traps, to try and catch the swinging log, or falling boulders, or whatever. then yeah. that i would say is most def working on his saving throws.
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.
I think your response here is a little harsh. This discussion is going on in the Rules & Mechanics section, not the Homebrew & Homerules section, so the replies you should expect will be relating to explaining and justifying the actual rules of this game. If you want to have a discussion about the feasibility of a model which increases AC on level up and lowers HP then the Homerule section would be more appropriate, and you would also need to propose an actual model. To match the PC new AC values, you would also need to look at all monster stat blocks, spell DCs and damage levels, and also magic items and feats and everything. The rebalancing needed approaches complexity levels that just starting with a different ruleset would probably be faster and easier.
Most people haven't misunderstood the point of this thread - most of them just dont agree that a change is required or very feasible.
Try DMing a few campaigns. Try out some homebrew solutions to the problem you see. You could try adding proficiency bonus minus two to AC. Let us know how it works.
Try DMing a few campaigns. Try out some homebrew solutions to the problem you see. You could try adding proficiency bonus minus two to AC. Let us know how it works.
That's actually what I was thinking. Just adding proficiency bonus would be overpowered. So the house ruled AC calculation should be something like 8+proficiency+DEX, all armors have -2 to their ACs and you add proficiency if you are proficient. And of course monsters should have boosted AC too (-2 + proficiency) or else it won't be balanced.
But that is house rule, the base rules work fine as is.
The difficulty with this discussion is that the OP isn't discussing ... they are trying to convince everyone else that they are right while ignoring all the reasonable comments about why it works ok in 5e as well as all the comments about character progression.
Is it possible for a level 1 to have the same AC as a level 20? Yes. If they have the same stats, same armor and shield, same magic items, then they are represented as being equally easy to physically hit.Is this not true? Leaving aside what the characters learn over time ... if they are wearing the same stuff then they should be about the same in terms of physically hitting them.
The increase of abilities with levels is NOT included in the AC in the simplified system of D&D 5e .. it is included in the HIT POINTS and the change in proficiency. HIT POINTS increase every level and citing the PHB represent:
"HIT POINTS Hit points represent a combination of physical and mental durability, the will to live, and luck. Creatures with more hit points are more difficult to kill. Those with fewer hit points are more fragile."
Hit points include mental durability, will to live, luck ... all factors that increase as you level. A level 20 wearing plate may be just as easy to hit as a level 1 but they turn to deflect blows and minimize their impact and as a result the experience they have gained.
Anyway, if you look at AC as a representation of physical protection then the system works more or less logically.
As for rider effects like poison that is not causing hit point damage - a level 20 is likely just as vulnerable to a scratch with poison as a level 1 is to a slash with poison ... unless the level 20 is proficient with the saving throw in which case they ARE better than a level 1. As part of the learning and leveling experience, characters learn how to better resist effects relying on saving throws. So a level 20 fighter will resist poison better than a level 1 ... though a level 20 wizard will likely be just as vulnerable as a level 1 unless they happen to have a contingency spell or other higher level mitigation effect in place.
Anyway, D&D 5e is a simplified system with simplified logic that works just fine for the majority of folks replying in this thread. If it bothers the OP so much that AC doesn't increase then just increase the AC in armor with which you are proficient by (proficiency-2) ... +0 at level 1 and +4 at level 20. You would need to increase the to hit and AC of monsters to accomodate the changes but you could do it if you really wanted to ... it will make higher level monsters more challenging for lower level opponents but game balance is up to the DM anyway.
Personally, I don't find the current D&D system so illogical that it would need such a modification but YMMV.
The increase of abilities with levels is NOT included in the AC in the simplified system of D&D 5e .. it is included in the HIT POINTS and the change in proficiency. HIT POINTS increase every level and citing the PHB represent:
"HIT POINTS Hit points represent a combination of physical and mental durability, the will to live, and luck. Creatures with more hit points are more difficult to kill. Those with fewer hit points are more fragile."
Hit points include mental durability, will to live, luck ... all factors that increase as you level. A level 20 wearing plate may be just as easy to hit as a level 1 but they turn to deflect blows and minimize their impact and as a result the experience they have gained.
will to live, mental durability, and luck.
none of those are "ability to dodge an attack, parrying blows, evading attacks" etc.
"more difficult to kill" Does not mean harder to hit. it *could* include it. But it does not mean it. More difficult to kill just means that, more difficult to kill. What's more difficult to kill. a Fly, or a Elephant?
You mean that Cale has a lot of experience in being grappled, and that is why he is better at it. Right?
Yes, this is very reasonable. Following the same logic, I think he should be better at completely avoiding incoming attacks (completely avoiding as in losing 0 HP) because he has a lot of experience in avoiding attacks too.
provided he has the experience in working on those specific things, yes.
Blank
Won't he get this experience by simply being a fighter? He doesn't work specifically towards getting a better STR saving throw either, it just happened a lot over the course of his adventures.
Think of it this way: there are something's you get better at just by doing them (using your muscles efficiently, swinging a weapon smoothly), and some things you improve only by learning something new (reading the angle of an enemy's strike, making better use of your armor with less effort).
Having an attack miss you, or bounce off your armor is not something you get better at the more it happens, you have to learn new ways to make it happen more. Fighters get a lot of opportunities to learn to defend themselves better, but if they dont use those opportunities, their defense will stay as it was when they started.
Yes, a level 1 character and a level 20 character wearing plate armor and a shield would have the same AC. I understand your argument, why would it be just as easy to hit the novice as it is to hit the master? The simple answer is, It shouldn't and as long as people view Hit Points as physical damage to your character it will continue to defy logic. Hit points are the outlier, as long as people continue to view hit points as "meat points" it won't make sense. The increase in hit points is the defensive ability you are looking for, but you (and many others) need to readjust the thinking about hit points, how characters use them, and how they play a role in the game.
People view hit points many ways, but the most common is physical damage you take. This defies logic on the simple fact of how you regain hit points on short or long rest. In older editions hit points were the physical manifestation of your life essence and it took a long time to regain them. (example:)
Using the 5e model, we see a shift from hit points being physical health to toughness. I describe it to my players as luck points and not health points.
Now back to the OP, if the goblin attacked the level one fighter and the level 20 fighter and rolls a natural 20, critical hit, for the goblin.
I don't have my characters getting roasted alive and losing their hair from dragons breath, if they make their save they ducked behind a rock, pillar, or dodged out of the way. Same with spells, perhaps they ducked under a table, their full plate armor protected them, or they threw their shield up in time. They took damage, the damage represents how well they avoided the attack, but they don't take physical (killing) damage until they get knocked unconscious in my games.
Yes and no.
There are fighters, that get in close, and swing their sword. and have a shield and do sword and board. Conceptually, he's working on very different things than a fighter using a 2-handed great sword, or a 2-handed Glaive. Additionally, unless he's deciding he wants to drop his weapons/shields, and wrestle the guy. or unless they are so much stronger than the opponent, that the opponent decides to wrestle them and sacrifice themselves essentially so their friends can take out the fighter. the fighter isn't really conceptually working on saving throws.
Now, if he's walking around, intentionally setting off booby traps, to try and catch the swinging log, or falling boulders, or whatever. then yeah. that i would say is most def working on his saving throws.
Blank
I think your response here is a little harsh. This discussion is going on in the Rules & Mechanics section, not the Homebrew & Homerules section, so the replies you should expect will be relating to explaining and justifying the actual rules of this game. If you want to have a discussion about the feasibility of a model which increases AC on level up and lowers HP then the Homerule section would be more appropriate, and you would also need to propose an actual model. To match the PC new AC values, you would also need to look at all monster stat blocks, spell DCs and damage levels, and also magic items and feats and everything. The rebalancing needed approaches complexity levels that just starting with a different ruleset would probably be faster and easier.
Most people haven't misunderstood the point of this thread - most of them just dont agree that a change is required or very feasible.
Try DMing a few campaigns. Try out some homebrew solutions to the problem you see. You could try adding proficiency bonus minus two to AC. Let us know how it works.
That's actually what I was thinking. Just adding proficiency bonus would be overpowered. So the house ruled AC calculation should be something like 8+proficiency+DEX, all armors have -2 to their ACs and you add proficiency if you are proficient. And of course monsters should have boosted AC too (-2 + proficiency) or else it won't be balanced.
But that is house rule, the base rules work fine as is.
The difficulty with this discussion is that the OP isn't discussing ... they are trying to convince everyone else that they are right while ignoring all the reasonable comments about why it works ok in 5e as well as all the comments about character progression.
Is it possible for a level 1 to have the same AC as a level 20? Yes. If they have the same stats, same armor and shield, same magic items, then they are represented as being equally easy to physically hit.Is this not true? Leaving aside what the characters learn over time ... if they are wearing the same stuff then they should be about the same in terms of physically hitting them.
The increase of abilities with levels is NOT included in the AC in the simplified system of D&D 5e .. it is included in the HIT POINTS and the change in proficiency. HIT POINTS increase every level and citing the PHB represent:
"HIT POINTS
Hit points represent a combination of physical and mental durability, the will to live, and luck. Creatures with more hit points are more difficult to kill. Those with fewer hit points are more fragile."
Hit points include mental durability, will to live, luck ... all factors that increase as you level. A level 20 wearing plate may be just as easy to hit as a level 1 but they turn to deflect blows and minimize their impact and as a result the experience they have gained.
Anyway, if you look at AC as a representation of physical protection then the system works more or less logically.
As for rider effects like poison that is not causing hit point damage - a level 20 is likely just as vulnerable to a scratch with poison as a level 1 is to a slash with poison ... unless the level 20 is proficient with the saving throw in which case they ARE better than a level 1. As part of the learning and leveling experience, characters learn how to better resist effects relying on saving throws. So a level 20 fighter will resist poison better than a level 1 ... though a level 20 wizard will likely be just as vulnerable as a level 1 unless they happen to have a contingency spell or other higher level mitigation effect in place.
Anyway, D&D 5e is a simplified system with simplified logic that works just fine for the majority of folks replying in this thread. If it bothers the OP so much that AC doesn't increase then just increase the AC in armor with which you are proficient by (proficiency-2) ... +0 at level 1 and +4 at level 20. You would need to increase the to hit and AC of monsters to accomodate the changes but you could do it if you really wanted to ... it will make higher level monsters more challenging for lower level opponents but game balance is up to the DM anyway.
Personally, I don't find the current D&D system so illogical that it would need such a modification but YMMV.
will to live, mental durability, and luck.
none of those are "ability to dodge an attack, parrying blows, evading attacks" etc.
"more difficult to kill" Does not mean harder to hit. it *could* include it. But it does not mean it. More difficult to kill just means that, more difficult to kill. What's more difficult to kill. a Fly, or a Elephant?
Which is more difficult to hit?
Blank