I'd say 18~27 would be expected. 31+ would be disruptive
|
Min AC at this level to be effective is mid 20's.
Effective more like low 30's.
High AC mid to high 30's.
The AC for each class will very.
With the bonus to hit your ability to ingress your AC is compromised. This is where it starts to show up. AC will be less important as you level from here. You can get a really high AC and it will help. The thing is from this point on mobility counts. There will be allot more spell effects going on for both sides.
Front liners in my group aim for about level plus 20 for a solid AC, a bit more if they are focused in having a good AC. Archers and skirmishers aim for about 5 less, again slightly more if they are focused on keeping their defenses high. Arcane casters generally eschew AC bonuses in favor of miss chances, so theirs is more or less negligible.
|
a good way to check it is to compare your party to a CR 8 monster that is mostly physical damage.
Stone Giant is a good example.
Stone Giant CR 8
XP 4,800
N Large humanoid (giant)
Init +2; Senses darkvision 60 ft., low-light vision; Perception +12
Defense
AC 22, touch 11, flat-footed 20 (+2 Dex, +11 natural, –1 size)
hp 102 (12d8+48)
Fort +12, Ref +6, Will +7
Defensive Abilities improved rock catching
Offense
Speed 40 ft.
Melee greatclub +16/+11 (2d8+12) or 2 slams +16 (1d8+8)
Ranged rock +11/+6 (1d8+12)
Space 10 ft.; Reach 10 ft.
Special Attacks rock throwing (180 ft.)
Statistics
Str 27, Dex 15, Con 19, Int 10, Wis 12, Cha 10
Base Atk +9; CMB +18; CMD 30
Feats Iron Will, Martial Weapon Proficiency (greatclub), Point-Blank Shot, Power Attack, Precise Shot, Quick Draw
Skills Climb +12, Intimidate +12, Perception +12, Stealth +4 (+12 in rocky terrain); Racial Modifiers +8 Stealth in rocky terrain
Languages Common, Giant
He has a 50/50 chance to slam someone with 26 AC. That's a good mid-range to look at. a PC with 36+ AC could fight this creature with a metal spork and win eventually because he would hardly get hit.
For that level, I would put arcane casters 15-20, support at 20-25 and frontline at 26-30
|
|
I'd say 18~27 would be expected. 31+ would be disruptive
Basically this.
As Ringtail says, the frontliner is generally shooting for something in the neighborhood of 20 + level (if they can). More accurately, 14 + 1.4*level +/- a couple points. Those not in the front are a few points behind, up to 10. Any more behind than that and they aren't relying on AC at all anymore.
This isn't really dependent on class, just on the focus of your build. You can make a tank-wizard if you want, and they should have about the same AC as the tank-fighter or the tank-rogue.
a good way to check it is to compare your party to a CR 8 monster that is mostly physical damage.
Stone Giant is a good example.
** spoiler omitted **
He has a 50/50 chance to slam someone with 26 AC. That's a good mid-range to look at. a PC with 36+ AC could fight this creature with a metal spork and win eventually because he would hardly get hit.
For that level, I would put arcane casters 15-20, support at 20-25 and frontline at 26-30
This chart can serve as a quick reference in place of looking up Monsters by CR.
31 is easy for a fighter at lv 8.
Front liners in my group aim for about level plus 20 for a solid AC, a bit more if they are focused in having a good AC. Archers and skirmishers aim for about 5 less, again slightly more if they are focused on keeping their defenses high. Arcane casters generally eschew AC bonuses in favor of miss chances, so theirs is more or less negligible.
This is pretty much what I see as well. AC growth I find slows down at higher levels 12+. This is offset by monsters damage not scaling as quickly, so while they start hitting more they do not do as large a portion of your HP.
You could do the math to figure out what the optimal AC is using the monster creation tables. The hardest step is defining what you want to be blocking and for how long. Blocking a single monster of CR=lvl is different than blocking CR>lvl or many CR<lvl, and it will affect how much AC you need. The other problem is defining things like how long you need to be able to stay standing against the monster (Not 1 shot, long enough to be a distraction, long enough for you to solo it with your average DPR).
I did some math in annother thread over a year ago using some of these assumptions. The end result, fighters needed an AC of 27 at level 10 to last 4 rounds on average against a single monster of CR=lvl. At level 5, they needed a 21. Generally though, front liners will be looking to be a little higher in my experience.
31 is easy for a fighter at lv 8.
Using the chart, I guessed that an AC high enough to make the low-end attackers miss on all but a 20 (AC 31) was the start of disruptive. You are of course free to make your own suggestion.
31 is easy for a fighter at lv 8.
Love to see you do it while staying within wealth by level guidelines (no more than 1/4 total wealth spend on defense) and keeping your focus on offense.
31 is doable. Its also disruptive and causes GMs to start to throw out of CR challenges your way in order to damage you, which puts other party members at risk.
|
31 is easy for a fighter at lv 8.Love to see you do it while staying within wealth by level guidelines (no more than 1/4 total wealth spend on defense) and keeping your focus on offense.
31 is doable. Its also disruptive and causes GMs to start to throw out of CR challenges your way in order to damage you, which puts other party members at risk.
Agreed!
"Table: Character Wealth by Level can also be used to budget gear for characters starting above 1st level, such as a new character created to replace a dead one. Characters should spend no more than half their total wealth on any single item. For a balanced approach, PCs that are built after 1st level should spend no more than 25% of their wealth on weapons, 25% on armor and protective devices, 25% on other magic items, 15% on disposable items like potions, scrolls, and wands, and 10% on ordinary gear and coins. Different character types might spend their wealth differently than these percentages suggest; for example, arcane casters might spend very little on weapons but a great deal more on other magic items and disposable items."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
lv 8
WBL: 33,000 gp
25% = 8250
Human
20 pt build
Str 19, Dex 16, Con 15, Int 10, Wis 10, Cha 7
Weapon Training: Heavy Blades
Full Plate +2 AC 11 5650 gp
Shield, Hvy Stl +1 AC 3 1170 gp
Ring of Protection +1 AC 1 1000 gp
Total 7820 gp
Defensive Feats:
Dodge AC 1
Shield Focus AC 1
Shield Focus, Greater AC 1
AC:
Base AC 10
Dex AC 3
Armor AC 11
Shield AC 5
Deflection AC 1
Total AC 31
Leaves room for plenty of other feats: Weapon Focus, Weapon Spec, Greater Weapon Focus, Improved Critical, Power Attack and Cleave. Has plenty of gp to afford a +2 Falcata.
Offense:
Falacata +2 Attack Bonus +17/+12 Damage 1d8+9 Crit 17-20/x3
W/PA Attack Bonus +14/+9 Damage 1d8+15
Not offensively optimized, but that wasn't really the point of the OP's post. Also, keep in mind that many AP's drop rings of deflection like water and that the 25% of WBL on defense is only a guideline for "a balanced approach". The fighter here, also, didn't use Combat Expertise or the Shielded Fighter archetype or a Weapon Finesse build which would add more defensive capability.
|
|
Jarl, you should probably note that the character is a fighter. Other characters with the same gear and feat investment will end up at 2 AC lower due to the max dexterity on the full plate.
Fighters and Monks have the best defensive potential, so to have fighter hit the upper end of the AC scale when they invest 3 feats into it isn't a big surprise to me.
stuff
I am not arguing what's possible. A synth-monk for instance will be able to hit 31 AC without feats or even items (10+5wis+12nat+2dex+2shield). I am merely pointing out the point where AC climbs into the "too hard for the stock monsters to deal with" range. I restate that you are free to provide your own suggestions.
what happened to max dex bonus on fullplate?
what happened to max dex bonus on fullplate?
Fighter Armor Training. Increases it by 2 at 7th level
what happened to max dex bonus on fullplate?
It's 3 and yes armor training. :)
@ Malfus:
I am not disagreeing with you on the level of difficulty for a monster at the expected CR at lv 8 to hit such a character. It does get hard for them to compensate.
I was merely pointing out that it is NOT terribly hard to hit your 31 AC target. Other classes with similar builds could easily expect to match it with the addition of a Amulet of Natural Armor and/or increasing the bonus of the ring of deflection to a +2. They drop so frequently in some AP's that my group sells them as trash. There is, also, Mage Armor.
@ Malfus:
I am not disagreeing with you on the level of difficulty for a monster at the expected CR at lv 8 to hit such a character. It does get hard for them to compensate.I was merely pointing out that it is NOT terribly hard to hit your 31 AC target. Other classes with similar builds could easily expect to match it with the addition of a Amulet of Natural Armor and/or increasing the bonus of the ring of deflection to a +2. They drop so frequently in some AP's that my group sells them as trash. There is, also, Mage Armor.
Perhaps you will inform me of your vision of disruptive then.
@Jarl: ring of protection +1 costs 2000gp.
|
|
I'm pretty sure that "It does get hard for them (a monster at expected CR at level 8) to compensate." = disruptive.
If the "single" CR equivalent monster can't hit the tank, the encounter is (in most cases) a cake walk. If we add more lower level baddies to generate an equal CR, then the baddies have ZERO chance of hitting. And, this happens most of the time in AP's.
I would like to point out that if we nixed the ring of protection (thanks to LK's spot) and removed the feats (AC increasing feats are not the norm for PC's in my experience, save for dodge which is a prominent prereq) we come to an unmodified AC of 27 (28 when dodge target is chosen), precisely the top of my "expected" scale. An unintentional, if not comical, situation.
LK: thanks. I claim brainfart.
Malfus: To answer, if your build has no stats at 20+, spent only 1/3 of your feats, and 25% of your monetary resources to accomplish, it is by definition not over optimized.
I'm running a campaign that currently has 6 level 8 PC's in it. The fighter has the highest AC and the barbarian the lowest. We don't currently have a pure arcane caster.
AC's range from...
Fighter (weapon and shield fighter) AC 27, possible to get it up to 33 when fighting defensively and using his +2 defending weapon on defense.
Monk (sacred mountain) AC 23, frequently goes much higher due to using ki points, iron limb defense, and combat expertise.
Cleric AC 23
Rogue AC 21
Bard AC 20
Barbarian AC 20 (18 when raging)
The monk and fighter can be hard to hit sometimes while the barbarian tends to be quite easy to hit at this level.
LK's spotting didn't put his character outside of WBL. It changed the 7820gp that was spent on defense items to 8820gp. So it's still a 29. And any time I've played a shield fighter I've also taken Shield focus since it's another easy +1 AC when you have an abundance of feats.
Like Jarl said, this doesn't include other feats like combat expertise that increase your AC further with a dodge bonus to AC that stacks on anything.
If we followed the 8250 that was imposed then he has indeed exceeded the items on AC allotment. Also, I was pointing out a silly observation I had. I am not pursuing an argument of factually reaching AC 31 without cheese, I am simply stating which levels of AC I would consider "normal" given level 8, as well as which AC I consider troublesome.
Admittedly I have not given an abundance of thought to the question before it was posed by the OP, therefore I pulled up the monster creation chart and made note of the low attack rating score. Using that I made a quick judgement as to where disruptive starts (low rating + 20). At higher levels I would have given it more thought, but seeing as how the low rating and high rating were separated by a mere 4 points, I elected to declare that I would find anything that the low rating could not hit without a nat 20 to be disruptive.Jarl was pointing out that 31 is easily reachable by a fighter and I, as of yet, am not convinced that he cares as to whether or not 31 is disruptive, only that it is reachable.
Malfus: To answer, if your build has no stats at 20+, spent only 1/3 of your feats, and 25% of your monetary resources to accomplish, it is by definition not over optimized.
I care not for optimization. Only for expectation (by means of the chart) and level of disruption. I suspect that a lvl 8 PC that can go on the offensive and remain at 31+ will be disruptive. I await your opinion on the matter.
@Jarl: no worries, the fighter is otherwise solid. Personally I prefer doing it with monks. At level 8 a defensively orientated monk reaches about AC 30 (before using ki dodge, crane style or similar extras).
@OP: in spite of the monk comment, at level 8 AC above 28 is "highly" defensive, and may be considered disruptive by some. But it is a rare character that doesn't actually exhibit several noticeable weaknesses. So an AC 31 fighter is hard to hit, sure, but he'll suffer through fireballs and (ranged) touch spells; a swarm of low CR shadows will make him succumb. High AC, in itself, is not inherently a problem with encounters designed to test all the defenses and resources of a party.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Given the low resource requirment to do it, no it should not be construed as overly disruptrive or optimized. If I brought him to the table and my DM whined about how hard he is to hit, I'd laugh and pull out a character I spent more than 10 minutes to build.
Frankly, the fighter above is so balanced that it doesn't even tickle my min/max funny bone.
If I could make a character hit AC 40 without more than 10 minutes of thought, would that make it any less disruptive? My point is that stock encounters are tailored to a certain level of difficulty. I assume the OP had stock encounters in mind, since technically any DM can spend more time on a session if he feels that the players are for some reason more powerful than the APs assume. If the chart provided for monster creation is at all accurate for such stock encounters, then I would assume that an AC too high to hit for a low end without a nat 20 would fit the definition of disruptive. I will restate the OP's question: "Likewise, what would be a disruptive (broken) AC for those same classes at level 8?" Perhaps 31 isn't broken, but that leaves this question:
"do you have an opinion of what AC is disruptive?"
Edit: Separated the question
|
|
I agree that Jarl's character wouldn't be a problem. This isn't because their AC isn't massive (it's pretty good), but because their saves and touch AC are not. Virtually anything that hits reflex, will or touch AC (which is a lot of stuff) will be quite effective against them. Their will save, in particular, is low enough that even with Iron Will they will need a double-digit roll to make a will save even against a lower difficult opponent. The average opponent may only need a single-digit result to hit their touch AC of 15 (BAB +4, attribute +2).
Also, when that character gets to higher levels, a BBEG with a brilliant energy weapon would be the bane of their existence. (Not a trick you'd want to pull too often.)
In other words: Hitting full normal AC is hard, but there are a lot of holes in that defense.
Kindly note that by buying an Amulet of Nat Armor +1 and taking the Full Plate bonus down to +1, he can afford the Ring of Prot +1 under WBL.
Or he could cheat and get Barkskin cast on him for +3 AC, like a Qigong Monk does.
Also note that for cost of a Trait, Defensive Fighting is -3 Th/+3 AC at this level, which is exactly your bonuses from Weapon training and Greater spec.
==Aelryinth
My level 8 druid has a base AC of 21. With her normal buffs entering into combat her AC increases to 26. She's not our front-line tank though. Our front-line tank has a base AC of 26 and goes into combat usually buffed up to 32 or 33.
However, buffs run out.
We do play a low-magic, low-wealth campaign.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The simplest way for a competent GM to control the unfortunate habit of d20 systems to balance around expected values with high numbers, high randomisation and high min-max build potential is to use CR as a GUIDELINE and not be a slave to it.
Most second generation+ rpg's require that the GM/Storyteller/Keeper et al do this as a matter of course.
I find many of the number crunching exercises in these forums in complete denial of this - being sterile and pointless speculations with far too many assumptions thrown in.
For instance - WHY is there an assumption that the fighter has access to precisely the defensive kit he wants, when he wants it? In any campaign with a storyline and even a nod at roleplaying would not have racks of kit available at every turn to allow such kit optimisation. Nor indeed would it have hundreds of Cha 7 fighters running around.
It would be like a ridiculous cartoon.
Such a shame the system allows for such min/max behaviour as a matter accepted fact.
Good house rules should curb this to a reasonable degree and a good GM use the CR as guidance - not a hard and fast ruleset.
Yes - this is a prallel issue to the debate, but one which should see the light more often. The rules and the threat level balancing therein are not set in reinforced concrete.
We could all benefit from not treating them as such and endlessly debating the minute details.
Imagination and creativity should trump rules loopholes, min/maxing and power-gaming every time WITHOUT interfering with themed characters (such as a very high AC fighter).
What is possible should not always equal what is readily available. If players complain about that they are not concerned so much with roleplay as gaming dominance, and who wants players like that eh?
If players complain about that they are not concerned so much with roleplay as gaming dominance, and who wants players like that eh?
I would assume a GM that doesn't mind stroking his players egos from time to time whilst also staying 2 steps ahead the entire time. A rare individual I am sure.
Not getting into the rest of the AC talk, but I'd put out that Malfus said when the Dodge target was indicated...the Dodge feat in PF applies to AC...no longer requiring a target be declared...not counting house rules to return it to 3.5 flavor.
"do you have an opinion of what AC is disruptive?"
If opponents can only hit it on a nat 20, then a 31 AC is exactly as disruptive as a 91 AC. Which only leaves the question:
"Is it OK for a player to only be hit on a 20?"Answer: Of course it is!
AC is only one of several defenses a character has. Chances are, not all of them are going to be strong, in fact some are probably going to be weak. The Fighter is far from invulnerable.
When he comes up against intelligent foes (which should not be rarely), they're going to target those defenses (making the Fighter's high AC irrelevant), or simply target the Cleric and Rogue who are also in melee (also making his high AC irrelevant).
Similarly, it's OK for the bad guys (occasionally) to have ACs that can only be hit on a nat 20. The party has ways to target his other defenses, and it reminds AM BARBARIAN that not all problems can be solved with a lance.
So, what IS diruptive?
If the player can shore up all of his defenses. (AC 31, touch AC 26, saves in the high teens, and preferably SR 25) AND still have offensive capabilities on par with other characters of his level.
Not getting into the rest of the AC talk, but I'd put out that Malfus said when the Dodge target was indicated...the Dodge feat in PF applies to AC...no longer requiring a target be declared...not counting house rules to return it to 3.5 flavor.
Oh my, it appears I am stuck in the old times. Thanks for the info.
I have no problems with the fighter above. It does what I asked. Its one of many builds that can do it. At trivially over the guildline weath, its not an issue. That being said, I have never seen a shield fighter take the +1 feats or see it recomended in any shield-based build.
Really, what it boils down to is I do not find the monster creation table accurate to what PCs can fairly easily do. Monsters don't scale at the same rate as PCs, and in low to mid levels it is fairly trivial to make yourself immune martial-based opponents of even 2 cr higher. I mean, you can get a fighter to break 40 if your trying. (Above fighter, +1 ANA, +2 shield, combat expertise, fighting defensive with accrobatics hits 38, before buff spells like haste). 38 will get you needing nat 20s on your average CR10.
I decided to do an experiment in Armor Class and spent most of my 11th level character's gold on AC items.
My Pathfinder Society Hellknight has an armor class of 35.
gear:
Mithral Hellknight Fullplate +2 (15,000 gp)
Heavy Mithral Shield +3 (10,020 gp)
Belt of Incredible Dexterity +2 (4000 gp)
Ring of Protection +1 (2000 gp)
Amulet of Natural Armor +1 (2000 gp)
Dusty rose Prism Ioun Stone (5000 gp)
feats:
Dodge
Shield Focus
Upgrading the ring or amulet to a +2 is next on the shopping list (+6000 gp).
As high as I thought his AC was, I've run into other characters with higher AC using multiclassing or spells to achieve ACs in the high 30s.
|
Calculating a reasonable ac must take into account the gm factor.
If a pc is immune to a particular type of attack, the dm will be more likely to move that attack to someone it can affect.
Therefore, the best ac for a tank to have is one that doesn't quite make them unhittable. If the dm can hit you 25% of the time, he'll send attacks your way instead of to the squishies.
One thing to factor in to the equation is that a too-high AC actually devalues your tank. If I'm the GM and I can't hit the tank, I'll go after the other party members with lower ACs.
I was in a 4e game where the fighter had marked the bad guy, but the bad guy kept whaling away on the squishy party members.
"But I MARKED you! You should be attacking me."
"I can't hit YOU, even with a -2 I'm hitting these guys half the time!"
So be careful with that AC. Tanks need to be a juicy target that the enemy sees a need to attack, not just an unhittable lump.