Some thoughts on the proficiency system and Armor Class

[Meophist]

<Massive delete to get to main point quicker>

Which leads me to the main purpose of this: attack checks and armor class. All of these are supposed to be working off the same system, so that should also include attack checks and armor class. This means an attack check is d20 + proficiency rank + level + attribute, and AC is 10 + proficiency + level + attribute.

At a glance, this feels fine, but we're missing a pretty crucial element of the game: the armor itself. If we use similar values for armor as Pathfinder 1, then we're not looking at very many hits unless weapons get similar bonuses. Having any bonuses from armor at all significantly decreases the number of hits done. Additionally, this unified system is supposed to allow for using different checks against different DCs, but this makes attacks and AC out of alignment from everything else.

Based on this, I have a couple of possibilities on how this could work:

• Armor by itself doesn't give AC bonuses. Instead AC is done through proficiency. Fighters will have Expert heavy armor proficiency to start, so they start with +2 AC while wearing heavy armor. I don't really think they're going to do this on the sole basis that I think it'll feel really bad.
• Attacks and AC are out of alignment from everything else. Weapons gives bonuses to attack checks depending on the weapon and armor gives bonuses to AC depending on the armor. However, these aren't used for most other checks vs AC, since they'll be against Touch AC instead which does use the same format as the other checks. And weapon attacks simply aren't used against non-AC values. This feels more likely to me.

The second possibility doesn't seem unlikely to be the case, and this means that, well, weapons will have their own attack bonuses, which opens some interesting design space.

Any thoughts on this?

[ChibiNyan]

I thought this would come up too! No idea, but think the designers have figured this out already. Just need to see one of their pregen guys to see what's going on.

[Fuzzypaws]

+8 AC from full plate would definitely create a large disparity between attack bonus, and AC bonus scaling at the same rate. I'm thinking either base AC is actually lower than 10, or they've gone and compressed AC values.

So, maybe light armor (regardless of how you describe it as leather, padded, whatever) is +1 AC, medium armor (be it chain mail or breast plate) is +2 AC, and heavy armor (whether plate mail or o-yori) is +3 AC. Or maybe there's 4 tiers of armor now, with chain being at +2, breastplate / splint mail being +3, and plate etc being +4.

Assuming they did this, they could have stopped there, or maybe they went a step further and incorporated damage reduction from armor.

I guess we'll have to wait and see.

[Meophist]

I thought about those two possibilities, although had forgotten when writing the initial post.

Base AC being lower than 10 does help with the math, although it would be an odd exception to the otherwise more universal rules.

Compressed AC values is also possible. I don't think Paizo would quite just make three/four armours and/or make them generic, so they will likely need to give them more different properties. Which is a possibility.

I still do think attack and AC being out of alignment with everything else, but they only interact with each other makes more sense, considering you can get higher quality weapons and armor for higher bonuses, which doesn't appear possible for anything else. Touch AC is also a thing and that can take the place of AC for anything that's not an attack.

[ryric]

I'm thinking there's a major part we're missing here, as taking an attack at -10 is not supposed to be a waste of an action. So a dedicated martial character ought to be able to get things to the point where they hit on a 5-6 on the d20, just so the -10 third attack doesn't have a greater chance of a crit failure than it does of hitting.

[Tarik Blackhands]

ryric wrote:

I'm thinking there's a major part we're missing here, as taking an attack at -10 is not supposed to be a waste of an action. So a dedicated martial character ought to be able to get things to the point where they hit on a 5-6 on the d20, just so the -10 third attack doesn't have a greater chance of a crit failure than it does of hitting.

I think the gist is that the third attack is not always meant to be a waste. Against a bruiser boss monsters, I figure the -10 is more than likely going to miss fairly consistently. However, if you want to clear out some of the guy's additionals, then the feel free to swing away at the rabble.

[Wheldrake]

We don't know anything about AC calculations yet.

Will they use some form of armor as DR? Possible.

Will there be a bonus from a characteristic (like DEX)? Likely.

Will the crafting quality of armor add to AC? Likely.

Will proficiency add directly to AC, or just reduce penalties? Unknown.

The magic eight-ball says there is a blog post on armor in our near future.

[David knott 242]

AC figures were given or implied in the playtest demos, but they didn't stick in my mind because they didn't seem too far out of line with figures I would expect for 1st level characters in PF1.

[Enlight_Bystand]

Wheldrake wrote:

We don't know anything about AC calculations yet.

Will they use some form of armor as DR? Possible.

Will there be a bonus from a characteristic (like DEX)? Likely.

Will the crafting quality of armor add to AC? Likely.

Will proficiency add directly to AC, or just reduce penalties? Unknown.

The magic eight-ball says there is a blog post on armor in our near future.

On the Armour as DR, I suspect this is unlikely, as this would have come up in the actual play we've heard - unless it's restricted to the heaviest armours.

[ryric]

I hope armor as DR isn't much of a thing - it takes a pretty major rebalancing of d20 to make something that even approximated effective armor as DR. The issue is that either your DR is so good that low level opponents can't hurt you at all, or so low that high level opponents don't care about your tiny DR. What DR is appropriate to let you fight against a tentacle monster that hits you for a d4+3 8 times a round, and then in the next fight is still relevant against a giant that does one big hit for 2d8+30? Either the tentacle monster is completely ineffective, or your armor is basically useless against the giant.

[Fuzzypaws]

Enlight_Bystand wrote:

Wheldrake wrote:

We don't know anything about AC calculations yet.

Will they use some form of armor as DR? Possible.

Will there be a bonus from a characteristic (like DEX)? Likely.

Will the crafting quality of armor add to AC? Likely.

Will proficiency add directly to AC, or just reduce penalties? Unknown.

The magic eight-ball says there is a blog post on armor in our near future.

On the Armour as DR, I suspect this is unlikely, as this would have come up in the actual play we've heard - unless it's restricted to the heaviest armours.

We've only heard low level play, yes? I suspect armor as physical damage reduction or all around damage resistance is something that might come in with higher tiers of armor Proficiency. It's just a matter of finding a way to balance it against both multiple smaller hits and singular giant hits.

[Meophist]

Wheldrake wrote:

We don't know anything about AC calculations yet.

Will they use some form of armor as DR? Possible.

Will there be a bonus from a characteristic (like DEX)? Likely.

Will the crafting quality of armor add to AC? Likely.

Will proficiency add directly to AC, or just reduce penalties? Unknown.

The magic eight-ball says there is a blog post on armor in our near future.

I quite understand that we can just wait and will have the answers soon enough anyways, but I feel that there's a lot of fun that can be had in analysing what we know and trying to predict what will come.

I don't really think DR will be a base part of armour, but I do think it could be an interesting defence vector. DR is something that's more effective against many smaller attacks than fewer stronger ones, it just means it's not a universal defense and there's ways around it.

[wizzardman]

DR also causes issues with low-damage attacks, such as from daggers (which would also be awkward for anyone wishing to use them, or anyone trying to cite the old "daggers were the most traditional stab-a-fallen-knight weapon" concept).

That said, I wouldn't mind a mix of AC and light DR, but I'm betting we're looking at either lower AC and to-hit values in general (ala 5E) and therefore scaled-down armor bonuses, or heavier use of weapons to-hit bonuses (maybe via the new "crafting quality" concept, tied in with higher general magic bonuses?).

[Meophist]

wizzardman wrote:

DR also causes issues with low-damage attacks, such as from daggers (which would also be awkward for anyone wishing to use them, or anyone trying to cite the old "daggers were the most traditional stab-a-fallen-knight weapon" concept).

That said, I wouldn't mind a mix of AC and light DR, but I'm betting we're looking at either lower AC and to-hit values in general (ala 5E) and therefore scaled-down armor bonuses, or heavier use of weapons to-hit bonuses (maybe via the new "crafting quality" concept, tied in with higher general magic bonuses?).

I don't think we're looking at (significantly) reduced AC or to-hit values in general. I'm not really familiar with PF1's numbers, but in PF2, from what we know, assuming Expert everything and 16 ability score at level 10, the numbers should be:

Attack = d20 + 3(ability score) + 2(expert proficiency) + 2(expert weapon) + 10(level) = d20 + 17
AC = 10 + 3(ability score) + 2(expert proficiency) + 2(expert armour) + 10(level) = 27

This is without any actual armour values, magical weapons/armour, or other effects, which can change things. In any case, these numbers don't seem low to me.

[Fuzzypaws]

Meophist wrote:

wizzardman wrote:

DR also causes issues with low-damage attacks, such as from daggers (which would also be awkward for anyone wishing to use them, or anyone trying to cite the old "daggers were the most traditional stab-a-fallen-knight weapon" concept).

That said, I wouldn't mind a mix of AC and light DR, but I'm betting we're looking at either lower AC and to-hit values in general (ala 5E) and therefore scaled-down armor bonuses, or heavier use of weapons to-hit bonuses (maybe via the new "crafting quality" concept, tied in with higher general magic bonuses?).

I don't think we're looking at (significantly) reduced AC or to-hit values in general. I'm not really familiar with PF1's numbers, but in PF2, from what we know, assuming Expert everything and 16 ability score at level 10, the numbers should be:

Attack = d20 + 3(ability score) + 2(expert proficiency) + 2(expert weapon) + 10(level) = d20 + 17
AC = 10 + 3(ability score) + 2(expert proficiency) + 2(expert armour) + 10(level) = 27

This is without any actual armour values, magical weapons/armour, or other effects, which can change things. In any case, these numbers don't seem low to me.

Bear in mind your numbers there mean only a 55% chance to hit /without an armor bonus/. If they have +8 armor from full plate, that shrinks to 15%, a natural 18 or above on d20. That's why the supposition that actual armor bonuses will be compressed.

[Meophist]

So, I think if there were differing attack bonuses for weapons, they would've said so in the weapons blog. The compressed AC theory seems to be holding more weight now.

[Captain Morgan]

Meophist wrote:

So, I think if there were differing attack bonuses for weapons, they would've said so in the weapons blog. The compressed AC theory seems to be holding more weight now.

Yeah. Based on Mark's comments, I think we are also maybe going to see "Armor Traits" in a similar manner as weapon traits. He said they are trying to avoid there being a "best in the weight class" armor this time around. That could just mean a rejiggering of how max dex caps work, but every other type of item seems to be getting a big overhaul, so I would be surprised if armor wasn't.

Also, if your level is added to both your touch AC and reflex save, we have a new mechanic to represent you getting better at parrying blows and getting out of the way of danger. Which I'm suuuuper into. That would mean your actual armor to AC doesn't have to scale as much. And since flatfooted can't make as big a swing this time around, touch AC probably won't either. So I'm betting the benefits of heavy armor will be something other than a big number to AC.

[Weather Report]

Captain Morgan wrote:

Meophist wrote:

So, I think if there were differing attack bonuses for weapons, they would've said so in the weapons blog. The compressed AC theory seems to be holding more weight now.

Yeah. Based on Mark's comments, I think we are also maybe going to see "Armor Traits" in a similar manner as weapon traits. He said they are trying to avoid there being a "best in the weight class" armor this time around. That could just mean a rejiggering of how max dex caps work, but every other type of item seems to be getting a big overhaul, so I would be surprised if armor wasn't.

Also, if your level is added to both your touch AC and reflex save, we have a new mechanic to represent you getting better at parrying blows and getting out of the way of danger. Which I'm suuuuper into. That would mean your actual armor to AC doesn't have to scale as much. And since flatfooted can't make as big a swing this time around, touch AC probably won't either. So I'm betting the benefits of heavy armor will be something other than a big number to AC.

This is all very cool, I am just apprehensive about the DM angle: remembering all those armour and weapon traits for all the creatures using them in an encounter, plus all their special attacks, qualities, etc.

[Deadmanwalking]

I personally don't think armor will conceptually change all that much. It may well get traits but will also add an actual AC bonus.

What I suspect, however, is that this AC bonus will probably mostly compensate for low Dex on AC, and a lot of ACs will thus wind up kinda similar. Mostly and kinda, anyway. High Dex-max armor will have a +2 or so bonus to make it clear that it's worth it to wear armor, and then heavier armor with lower Dex will have higher bonuses.

Now, per demo games, a Dex 18 Rogue seems to have an AC of 17 in some sort of light armor. That's consistent with +4 Dex, +2 Armor +1 Level, and so I'd expect that pattern to maintain with other armor. Indeed, in support of this, a Fighter of unknown Dex (but definitely sub-18) but heavier armor also has AC 17 (+4 Armor, +2 Dex, +1 Level, maybe), ignoring any shield.

So I'd think that's gonna be a pretty typical 1st level AC for PCs, though it can quite possibly go higher than that on a specialist.

This sort of thing is a trifle difficult to balance over the course of many levels, but I'm sure they'll have come up with something.

[ElSilverWind]

Meophist wrote:

wizzardman wrote:

DR also causes issues with low-damage attacks, such as from daggers (which would also be awkward for anyone wishing to use them, or anyone trying to cite the old "daggers were the most traditional stab-a-fallen-knight weapon" concept).

That said, I wouldn't mind a mix of AC and light DR, but I'm betting we're looking at either lower AC and to-hit values in general (ala 5E) and therefore scaled-down armor bonuses, or heavier use of weapons to-hit bonuses (maybe via the new "crafting quality" concept, tied in with higher general magic bonuses?).

I don't think we're looking at (significantly) reduced AC or to-hit values in general. I'm not really familiar with PF1's numbers, but in PF2, from what we know, assuming Expert everything and 16 ability score at level 10, the numbers should be:

Attack = d20 + 3(ability score) + 2(expert proficiency) + 2(expert weapon) + 10(level) = d20 + 17
AC = 10 + 3(ability score) + 2(expert proficiency) + 2(expert armour) + 10(level) = 27

This is without any actual armour values, magical weapons/armour, or other effects, which can change things. In any case, these numbers don't seem low to me.

I’m sorry, this is extremely nitpicky of me and doesn’t change your math at all, but Expert only gives a +1 Bonus. Master is what gives +2.

[Weather Report]

Deadmanwalking wrote:

I personally don't think armor will conceptually change all that much. It may well get traits but will also add an actual AC bonus.

What I suspect, however, is that this AC bonus will probably mostly compensate for low Dex on AC, and a lot of ACs will thus wind up kinda similar.

Yeah, like 5th Ed, no amour is 10 + 5 (max): 15, light armour is 12 + 5 (max): 17, medium is 15 + 2 (max): 17, Heavy is (no Dex bonus): 18.

[Deadmanwalking]

Weather Report wrote:

Yeah, like 5th Ed, no amour is 10 + 5 (max): 15, light armour is 12 + 5 (max): 17, medium is 15 + 2 (max): 17, Heavy is (no Dex bonus): 18.

Heck, it's almost true in PF1 if you ignore special magic armor ala Celestial Armor (Light is 4+4=18, Medium if 6+3=19, and Heavy is 9+1=20).

I think it might be even more true in this edition, but like I said, it's not gonna be a big conceptual change even if some of the numbers shift a little.

[Lucas Yew]

As long as the math matches the in-game fiction for everyone, I'd be fine with any of the two solutions proposed.

[Deadmanwalking]

To clarify:

I don't think weapons will get variable per-weapon attack bonuses, because I don't think armor will vary maximal AC all that much. There might be an additional factor added to attacks that we don't know about, or high levels of Armor Proficiency might just be harder to get than high levels of Weapon Proficiency, or something else entirely, but I think it'll be consistent across weapons.

[Meophist]

So, there's little about the new blog on armour that really, well, settles this question.