Larian Banner: Baldur's Gate Patch 9
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
#713933 23/10/20 03:26 PM
Joined: Oct 2020
A
stranger
OP Offline
stranger
A
Joined: Oct 2020
I noticed something the other day (and I promise it was really an accident) . AC is correct for the types of armor you have just like in the TT version of D&D; however, my character was "naked" for some reason (I guess I clicked her armor and unequipped it by accident while going through her equipment) and her AC was only 1 less than her leather armor. I experimented and, sure enough, she got hit or missed just as much as she would have if she wore her armor. Now, I know that some classes don't usually wear armor, like a wizard, or have proficiencies for armor (like a Rogue doesn't use heavy armor for example), but, unless the character is a Monk (and they haven't been brought into the game yet), your AC should be 0 or 1 if you aren't wearing anything at all. Gale wears robes which is essentially clothing and it is AC 10 (and bonus with your DEX modifier). Le'Zel, or any fighter with heavy armor, gets an AC of 14 (plus modifier where they apply) but when I took off her armor, she had a AC of 12 (10 + DEX modifier).
Although it is amusing to have a band of naked adventurers fighting goblins and whatnot, if you don't have any armor on (unless you are a Monk), your AC should be 1 (for d20 attack rolls), not 10.

Asylumchild #713937 23/10/20 03:29 PM
Joined: Jan 2018
W
veteran
Offline
veteran
W
Joined: Jan 2018
No, that isn’t how 5th edition AC works. Base AC is 10. Leather is AC 11 + dex.

AC 10 means that the enemy has to roll at least a 10 (without any bonuses) to hit you. An AC of 1 would mean everything 2 through 20 would hit you, and wizards would be fucked. 😂

Last edited by Warlocke; 23/10/20 03:32 PM.
Asylumchild #713950 23/10/20 03:40 PM
Joined: Oct 2020
T
addict
Offline
addict
T
Joined: Oct 2020
In D&D 5e, you have one AC equation, what equation that is depends on various things.

Unarmored non-Monk/non-Barbarian = 10 + Dex mod
Unarmored Monk = 10 + Dex mod + Wis mod
Unarmored Barbarian = 10 + Dex mod + Con mod
Light Armor = (Armor's Base) + Dex Mod
Medium Armor = (Armor's Base) + Dex Mod (max of 2)
Medium Armor with Medium Armor Master = (Armor's Base) + Dex Mod (max of 3)
Heavy Armor = Armor's Base
Lizardfolk Unarmored = 13 + Dex mod
Draconic Sorcerer Unarmored = 13 + Dex mod
Mage Armor = 13 + Dex mod

You cannot stack equations so an unarmored Lizardfolk Monk would have either (10 + Dex mod + Wis mod) or (13 + Dex mod), they would not have (13 + Dex mod + Wis mod) you just take the best of all applicable equations.


There are things that add a bonus to AC rather than replace equations:

Shields
Shield spell
Shield of Faith spell
Armor enhancement bonuses
Ring of Protection
Bracers of Defense
Cloak of Protection
and a few others

These add on top.

So a Lizardfolk monk with 16 Dex and 16 Wis wearing Bracers of Defense would have 18 AC (10 + 3 Dex + 3 Wis + 2 Bracers).

Asylumchild #713952 23/10/20 03:42 PM
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Rugby, UK
Cleric of Innuendo
Offline
Cleric of Innuendo
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Rugby, UK
Originally Posted by Asylumchild
I noticed something the other day (and I promise it was really an accident) . AC is correct for the types of armor you have just like in the TT version of D&D; however, my character was "naked" for some reason (I guess I clicked her armor and unequipped it by accident while going through her equipment) and her AC was only 1 less than her leather armor. I experimented and, sure enough, she got hit or missed just as much as she would have if she wore her armor. Now, I know that some classes don't usually wear armor, like a wizard, or have proficiencies for armor (like a Rogue doesn't use heavy armor for example), but, unless the character is a Monk (and they haven't been brought into the game yet), your AC should be 0 or 1 if you aren't wearing anything at all. Gale wears robes which is essentially clothing and it is AC 10 (and bonus with your DEX modifier). Le'Zel, or any fighter with heavy armor, gets an AC of 14 (plus modifier where they apply) but when I took off her armor, she had a AC of 12 (10 + DEX modifier).
Although it is amusing to have a band of naked adventurers fighting goblins and whatnot, if you don't have any armor on (unless you are a Monk), your AC should be 1 (for d20 attack rolls), not 10.

D&D is a bit odd with how it treats armour. You could get away with being naked if you had a high DEX and/or other defensive bonuses such as a Monk's WIS or Mage Armour. Sometimes it is better to wear lighter armour because heavier suits don't allow your full DEX bonus. Even experienced players occasionally have to pause and calculate which is the better option.

But don't have a AC of 0. That makes you an inanimate object.

Sadurian #713956 23/10/20 03:47 PM
Joined: Oct 2020
T
addict
Offline
addict
T
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Sadurian
Originally Posted by Asylumchild
I noticed something the other day (and I promise it was really an accident) . AC is correct for the types of armor you have just like in the TT version of D&D; however, my character was "naked" for some reason (I guess I clicked her armor and unequipped it by accident while going through her equipment) and her AC was only 1 less than her leather armor. I experimented and, sure enough, she got hit or missed just as much as she would have if she wore her armor. Now, I know that some classes don't usually wear armor, like a wizard, or have proficiencies for armor (like a Rogue doesn't use heavy armor for example), but, unless the character is a Monk (and they haven't been brought into the game yet), your AC should be 0 or 1 if you aren't wearing anything at all. Gale wears robes which is essentially clothing and it is AC 10 (and bonus with your DEX modifier). Le'Zel, or any fighter with heavy armor, gets an AC of 14 (plus modifier where they apply) but when I took off her armor, she had a AC of 12 (10 + DEX modifier).
Although it is amusing to have a band of naked adventurers fighting goblins and whatnot, if you don't have any armor on (unless you are a Monk), your AC should be 1 (for d20 attack rolls), not 10.

D&D is a bit odd with how it treats armour. You could get away with being naked if you had a high DEX and/or other defensive bonuses such as a Monk's WIS or Mage Armour. Sometimes it is better to wear lighter armour because heavier suits don't allow your full DEX bonus. Even experienced players occasionally have to pause and calculate which is the better option.

But don't have a AC of 0. That makes you an inanimate object.


This pretty much.

In this edition, Unarmored, Light, Medium, and Heavy are all capable of getting to the low to mid 20s if you put the build resources and effort in. So which one you choose is a manner of what flavor you want (of course, some classes and races fit different modes easier. Like Fighter can do Light, Medium, or Heavy pretty well, but isn't a good fit for Unarmored unless they have Mage Armor or are Lizardfolk).

There are some slight gameplay differences between the four varieties, mostly in terms of what sort of enchanted armors are available...but largely it's flavor.

Sadurian #714070 23/10/20 05:03 PM
Joined: Oct 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Sadurian

But don't have a AC of 0. That makes you an inanimate object.


What a coincidence, that's what my Dwarf Fighter identifies itself as.

Asylumchild #714806 24/10/20 05:53 AM
Joined: Oct 2020
A
stranger
OP Offline
stranger
A
Joined: Oct 2020
I guess what I'm trying to say is if you wear anything - robes, clothing, etc. - then I can see the AC 10 but to be in your cute bikini undies and still have about as much AC as you would have if you were wearing Light Armor seems weird.

Asylumchild #714836 24/10/20 07:21 AM
Joined: Sep 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Sep 2020
Originally Posted by Asylumchild
I guess what I'm trying to say is if you wear anything - robes, clothing, etc. - then I can see the AC 10 but to be in your cute bikini undies and still have about as much AC as you would have if you were wearing Light Armor seems weird.



In that case you are awarded an armor class of 10 due to either:

A) opponent laughing his ass off at you.
B) opponent distracted by your other "equipment" (either advantage or disadvantage)
C) you are all greased up, thereby making it touch for anyone to either hit or hold you
D0 you are a dwarf, and your opponent can't see beyond your beard to actually hit you

Asylumchild #714959 24/10/20 10:25 AM
Joined: Jan 2018
W
veteran
Offline
veteran
W
Joined: Jan 2018
Originally Posted by Asylumchild
I guess what I'm trying to say is if you wear anything - robes, clothing, etc. - then I can see the AC 10 but to be in your cute bikini undies and still have about as much AC as you would have if you were wearing Light Armor seems weird.


Why would cloth provide any armor, let along an increase that huge? The basic light armor is either a simple leather jerkin or padded armor, neither of which would provide you with significant protection, so an increase from 10 to 11 feels appropriate.

Warlocke #714969 24/10/20 10:35 AM
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Rugby, UK
Cleric of Innuendo
Offline
Cleric of Innuendo
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Rugby, UK
Originally Posted by Warlocke
Why would cloth provide any armor, let along an increase that huge? The basic light armor is either a simple leather jerkin or padded armor, neither of which would provide you with significant protection, so an increase from 10 to 11 feels appropriate.

<Coughs and dons Historian hat>
Padded armour was actually hugely more effective than D&D and other FRPGs give it credit for. A padded gambeson would turn sword blows and 'defeat' (actually mitigate rather than defeat) many blows from blunt weapons. Leather is another one. Light hunting leathers or fashion-weight leather would be marginally effective (and deserve the terrible AC it has) but thicker, armour-weight leather was amazingly effective. Witness the buff coat that lasted into the C18th in some European armies. It would stop most blades from penetrating. Damage was still caused by impact, but nothing was opened up to infection or cut off.

All that said, D&D has its own system of classifying armour, and who are we to change things at this stage. Leather armour in D&D 5e is AC11 (only marginally better than being naked), and you have to live with that.

Last edited by Sadurian; 24/10/20 10:36 AM.
Asylumchild #715439 24/10/20 04:44 PM
Joined: Oct 2020
T
addict
Offline
addict
T
Joined: Oct 2020
Basically, in Light Armor most of your protection comes from your agility and avoiding attacks. Basic leather and cloth aren't going to give that much more protection.

AC: 10 is the level of ability the person with average (9-10) Dex has to dodge/avoid blows.

Light armor adds a little bit but not much mitigation to this, which makes sense, really. Leather realistically is only going to give significant protection from environmental hazards like basic thorny vines. Leather is not going to do much to stop a sword, arrow, mace, or axe.

Thicker, armor-grade leathers like cuir bouilli, or cloth-type armors like gambesons, should probably be at least studded leather stats, and may be on the low end of Medium armor. Brigandine is leaning toward the stats of breastplate and halfplate...maybe even Ringmail.

Japanese style bamboo armors are also medium to heavy armors.

Light armor stuff...realistically is people wearing sturdy work gear because they can't get something better.


Moderated by  Dom_Larian, Freddo, vometia 

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5