Least gear dependant class?

did you even read the whole post?

Did you read the post you were replying to?

.. except that AC basically falls out of the game entirely for most characters in the midlevels, assuming you face something besides hordes of useless mooks.

Your anecdotal evidence is IRRELEVANT because you have built your character for AC (by your own admission). You are not most people, not who he was talking about, and have not presented any sort of counterevidence.

So true, Cartigan.

On a side note, for most PCs, avoidance is a better method of minimizing incoming damage than Armor Class; simply because armor class tends to be somewhat difficult to keep relevant unless your character is at least somewhat built around doing so.

The most common means of "avoidance" tanking is concealment since it gives a % miss chance against incoming attacks. This means that you have at least a 4/20 chance to avoid a hit with concealment, or a 10/20 chance to avoid a hit with total concealment. Concealment also prevents sneak attack from applying, which makes concealment based tanking ideal against rogues and assassins.

Effects such as mirror image are also ideal for avoidance, and it stacks with concealment (if you're wearing a cloak of displacement, then all your copies get concealment too), making it an ideal buff for avoiding incoming hits.

Now, those that focus on AC can get the best of both worlds, because nothing prevents you from having a high AC and having displacement cast on you, and having mirror image active as well. This means they have to penetrate your concealment, your copies, and your AC, before they can actually land a real hit.

drbuzzard wrote:

did you even read the whole post?

Did you read the post you were replying to?

Yes, but unlike you I understood what it said.

Your anecdotal evidence is IRRELEVANT because you have built your character for AC (by your own admission). You are not most people, not who he was talking about, and have not presented any sort of counterevidence.

The reason most people don't build for AC is because they believe nonsense like you are pushing. Read his actual quote.

What he actually said (and I responded to) was:

except that AC basically falls out of the game entirely for most characters in the midlevels, assuming you face something besides hordes of useless mooks.

He didn't say anything about the choices that people make vis a vis AC, he stated that it became less useful. That is what I dispute. I even went to the trouble of demonstrating it by CR and in a case where I haven't even fully built for AC. I just didn't completely blow it off like some people seem to (foolishly IMO) advocate. I could easily have more AC for some offensive cost, but the effect of that AC would be even more pronounced since the numbers close to the margin are always magnified (ie making your enemy need a 20 vs 19-20 halves your incoming damage).

My build spends a fair amount of money on AC, but he still has a strong offense and dedicates only 3 of 11 feats to the cause. For that investment I get a very good return in my experience (and it can be demonstrated in the numbers against CR 10 critters).

So true, Cartigan.

On a side note, for most PCs, avoidance is a better method of minimizing incoming damage than Armor Class; simply because armor class tends to be somewhat difficult to keep relevant unless your character is at least somewhat built around doing so.

The most common means of "avoidance" tanking is concealment since it gives a % miss chance against incoming attacks. This means that you have at least a 4/20 chance to avoid a hit with concealment, or a 10/20 chance to avoid a hit with total concealment. Concealment also prevents sneak attack from applying, which makes concealment based tanking ideal against rogues and assassins.

Effects such as mirror image are also ideal for avoidance, and it stacks with concealment (if you're wearing a cloak of displacement, then all your copies get concealment too), making it an ideal buff for avoiding incoming hits.

Now, those that focus on AC can get the best of both worlds, because nothing prevents you from having a high AC and having displacement cast on you, and having mirror image active as well. This means they have to penetrate your concealment, your copies, and your AC, before they can actually land a real hit.

A fighter which doesn't make at least a minimal effort towards AC is severely gimping themselves IMO. Now granted, not everyone wants to do sword and board, which is the optimal AC vehicle, but you can still put some effort into it otherwise and get at least reasonable returns. Yes, avoidance is nice, but as you say both is a heck of a lot better.

Yes, but unlike you I understood what it said.

Your completely ignoring what it said leads me to think you don't.

The reason most people don't build for AC is because they believe nonsense like you are pushing. Read his actual quote.

What he actually said (and I responded to) was:

Quote:

except that AC basically falls out of the game entirely for most characters in the midlevels, assuming you face something besides hordes of useless mooks.

Which you missed the important part of:

He didn't say anything about the choices that people make vis a vis AC,

That is, effectively, EXACTLY what he said.

he stated that it became less useful.

Via not focusing on it. Here is the rest of what he said

A 1 modifier advantage in DEX lets you avoid being hit 1 in 20 times. Assuming it's an attack that targets AC (and most of the scariest ones don't), that they aren't already hitting you on a 2 or better, and that avoiding damage actually gets you something in this particular case. The black dragon is mauling the crap out of your party's rogue? I'm sure he's grateful your AC is higher.

He is SPECIFICALLY talking about choices made to increase AC and especially in lieu of focusing on damage dealing.

That is what I dispute. I even went to the trouble of demonstrating it by CR and in a case where I haven't even fully built for AC.

How many times do I have to say "YOU SHOWED NOTHING AT ALL" before it sinks in? Your anecdotal evidence COMPLETELY ignored his entire thread of argument. Because you can increase your AC doesn't mean (a) you should or (b) that pumping AC for MOST CHARACTERS becomes an exercise in futility by mid levels.

You. Have. Proven. Nothing.

drbuzzard wrote:

Yes, but unlike you I understood what it said.

Your completely ignoring what it said leads me to think you don't.

Oh goody, one of these exercises. It's clear what he said, and it's clear what I quoted. I didn't quote anything out of context either. Because you add additional context which wasn't there doesn't change what I was responding to.

Quote:

The reason most people don't build for AC is because they believe nonsense like you are pushing. Read his actual quote.

What he actually said (and I responded to) was:

Quote:

except that AC basically falls out of the game entirely for most characters in the midlevels, assuming you face something besides hordes of useless mooks.

Which you missed the important part of:

"MOST characters in the midlevels."
Did he say "all?" No. You are wrong.

Umm, no. You again are dodging what he said and dragging in irrelevancies which are not in context. The discussion was about trying to build up AC on a monk. If the character is able to build it up enough to be useful, it is important. Whether or not people bother to do so is irrelevant to the discussion. That is in fact anecdotal since it doesn't matter what people choose to do. What matters is whether something is mathematically effective within the scope of game mechanics.

Quote:

He didn't say anything about the choices that people make vis a vis AC,

That is, effectively, EXACTLY what he said.

Quote:

he stated that it became less useful.

Via not focusing on it. Here is the rest of what he said

Quote:

A 1 modifier advantage in DEX lets you avoid being hit 1 in 20 times. Assuming it's an attack that targets AC (and most of the scariest ones don't), that they aren't already hitting you on a 2 or better, and that avoiding damage actually gets you something in this particular case. The black dragon is mauling the crap out of your party's rogue? I'm sure he's grateful your AC is higher.

He is SPECIFICALLY talking about choices made to increase AC and especially in lieu of focusing on damage dealing.

Funny, I don't see anything in there about people making choices . I see a a straw man about AC being set up where you assume the person has a 'hit me' level AC and so adding in another point is irrelevant. A comparable observation would have been "water is wet". It's not really overly informative.

Note that your argument is hidden within the weasel word of "effectively". I mean how you have the gall to call someone one being inaccurate when you say something as nonsensical as "effectively exactly". Those two words don't go together in a logically coherent sentence.

I think you really need some lessons on reading comprehension, since as it is generally accepted it means getting the meaning which is present in the text rather than what you might imagine (or wish) there to be.

Quote:

That is what I dispute. I even went to the trouble of demonstrating it by CR and in a case where I haven't even fully built for AC.

How many times do I have to say "YOU SHOWED NOTHING AT ALL" before it sinks in? Your anecdotal evidence COMPLETELY ignored his entire thread of argument. Because you can increase your AC doesn't mean (a) you should or (b) that pumping AC for MOST CHARACTERS becomes an exercise in futility by mid levels.

You. Have. Proven. Nothing.

You. Are. Blathering.

I have been clear and your imaginary demonstrations of "fact" are borderline delusional. I have shown numbers, and I can easily list off what expenditures are required to make the build I was talking about. An AC of 35 consumes less than 50% of your WBL at 10th level. It has a significant effect on reducing damage against things you are likely to encounter. That is my point, and it is mathematically demonstrable.

For some reason you have deluded yourself into thinking that something mathematically demonstrable is anecdotal. That is fallacious.

A build which spends a fair amount on survival will get a solid return from it. That is my proposition and you've don't nothing but dance around that claim belittling it without offering any indication as to why it would not be true (anecdotal- feh).

Oh, and I should be clear, I am defending AC as an important factor in a well built melee combatant. I am not, however, implying that monks are ever terribly good melee combatants. My context is fighter builds in particular, and in the case of a fighter, blowing off AC is extremely unwise.

Oh goody, one of these exercises. It's clear what he said, and it's clear what I quoted. I didn't quote anything out of context either. Because you add additional context which wasn't there doesn't change what I was responding to.

Additional context being the rest of the same post..?

What matters is whether something is mathematically effective within the scope of game mechanics.

Which it demonstrably isn't unless you focus on AC above everything else. Ie, why he said most. I have no idea what you think that word means, but generally it is used as a qualifier meaning "many but not all."

I have shown numbers

Your numbers became irrelevant the moment you said "He is built for AC."

drbuzzard wrote:

Oh goody, one of these exercises. It's clear what he said, and it's clear what I quoted. I didn't quote anything out of context either. Because you add additional context which wasn't there doesn't change what I was responding to.

Additional context being the rest of the same post..?

Which you then quote in its entirety and demonstrate that you are making things up. Bravo.

Quote:

What matters is whether something is mathematically effective within the scope of game mechanics.

Which it demonstrably isn't unless you focus on AC above everything else. Ie, why he said most. I have no idea what you think that word means, but generally it is used as a qualifier meaning "many but not all."

As I also clarified later, I could well actually focus on AC on the build and bump it appreciably higher. I would, however, in that case give up a lot of offense. I didn't do that, and as such my build both produces good offense and has a solid AC. Thus it doesn't focus on AC above everything else like you falsely claim.

Quote:

I have shown numbers

Your numbers became irrelevant the moment you said "He is built for AC."

You AUTOMATICALLY ruled yourself out of the category of people Dire Mongoose was referring to.

Yes, I should obviously not have used that sentence since you are clutching it like a drowning man on a piece of driftwood as it constitutes the entirety of your argument. My simple demonstrations of what actual amount of resources were expended to achieve that AC have been blithely ignored. Not to mention the listing of offensive potential which is not negligible.

But no, your fixation on a sentence which says "he is built for AC" overrides any amount of facts I might present because it is the only possible way in which your post and argument doesn't collapse as the farcical nonsense it is.

Which you then quote in its entirety and demonstrate that you are making things up. Bravo.

So by quoting the rest of the same post I am making things up and adding context that is not there? Right, I think this is quite done.

I think that with minimal investment, AC has been shown to be relevant in battles against EPIC single monster encounters. When you invest significant resources into AC, it becomes very effective, even in epic single monster encounters.

Since most battles will be against groups of lesser monsters (see charts below), AC is an important part of the game. Some classes can get around it with things like mirror image, and all classes can benefit from blur and things like stoneskin, but no one can ignore defenses completely.

One last thing I would add is that adventuring usually involves other party members who can use their abilities to augment their companions. In almost every campaign I have played in the martial characters best investment is giving pearls of power to the spell casters, or chipping in for wands. Mage armor, barkskin, heroism, etc. are usually there when you go up against boss monsters, and some debuffing against the monsters as well.

Easy APL –1
Average APL
Challenging APL +1
Hard APL +2
Epic APL +3

1 Creature CR
2 Creatures CR +2
3 Creatures CR +3
4 Creatures CR +4
6 Creatures CR +5
8 Creatures CR +6
12 Creatures CR +7

PS Is it me, or have the CR's for the good outsiders who are full casters been WAY too low since 3.5? If you compare it to other things of similar CR, it is about even - oh yeah, and it also has the spells of cleric! I just don't see the balance.

This reminds me of the GM who was asking if it was a good idea that one of his players was more or less ignoring armor class buffs at mid to high levels. He asked a message board of people who make this sort of thing their thing (running numbers, comparing statistics, etc).

As it turned out, if the Barbarian had invested a lot of his time and resources into his AC it would be wasted. The reason was because he couldn't get it high enough that it would matter for the cost. If your opponent has a 95+% chance to hit you, dumping a lot of resources to bring that to an 80% chance is not effective. In play he's going to hit you far, far more than he will miss you.

This is why I said that for most PCs (which was the subject of the statement, most PCs) that armor class wasn't primarily a concern. Characters with heavy armor tend to have the best armor classes, which include Fighters and Paladins. Clerics can spend a feat. Most everyone else tends to use medium or lighter.

At 20th level, a barbarian with a +5 mithril breastplate (+11), +5 dexterity, +5 amulet of natural armor, and a +5 ring of protection, only has an AC of 36, or 34 when raging. This means an equal HD warrior with no +hit modifiers (just BAB) will hit him on a 14 or 12 or 30%-40% of the time, with only a +0 strength, no item bonuses, no feat bonuses, etc.

A garden variety balor has a +31/+26/+21/+16 before buffs. This means the Balor has an 80% chance to hit, then a 55% chance to hit, then a 30% chance, and then a 5% chance; before buffs. That's with a +5 armor, +5 ring, +5 amulet, and +5 dexterity. If the Balor has buffed or been buffed in the slightest, he quickly hits the 95% cap on one to two of his attacks.

Now a Fighter with a shield can get incredibly difficult to hit from AC alone, thanks to a variety of nice features, the benefit of a shield, armor training, and various feats.

However, the barbarian would actually have a better chance with a lesser cloak of displacement, as it would give a 20% miss chance vs all the attacks, so the balor has at least a 20% chance to miss. If the barbarian has a cloak of displacement, the balor's best chance to hit drops to 50% due to concealment. If the barbarian has a method of gaining mirror image for a time, the hit % goes down hard.

So for most classes, stacking avoidance works best.
For Fighter-types, high AC + Avoidance = Nigh unkillable by physical attacks.

You know, I'm playing in a campaign where the deities are dying and there are very few of them alive... every planes are merging into a new one. And the magic balance is nonexistent. So "Magic" doesn't exist right now in our campaign. Though the DM specifically said that Supernatural and extraordinary abilities still work, spells and magic items are nonfunctional and some Major Artifacts still function however.

So in the end, spell casters suck in our campaign AS IS. Druid can Wild Shape, Cleric and paladins can't do anything because deities are now mortals once again. Bards can sing but no casting spells.

So all martial classes ROCK! But no one does it better like the MONK! All of his abilities are SuperNaturaL!

In this thread, we learn that monks rock when you remove spells from the spellcasters.

Very interesting Ashiel.

It does seem AC breaks down pretty badly at the highest levels.

For example:
CR 14 Adult Red Dragon:
Melee bite +25 (2d8+15), 2 claws +25 (2d6+10), 2 wings +23 (1d8+5), tail slap +23 (2d6+15)

CR 19 Ancient Red Dragon:
Melee bite +35 (4d6+21/19–20), 2 claws +35 (2d8+14), 2 wings +33 (2d6+7), tail slap +33 (2d8+21)

The Characters going up against the Adult dragon are going to have mostly +3-4 items.
+4 Armor
+3 NA
+3 Deflection
+1 Dex (+2 to physical scores)
Base +11
Base +17 with shield

The Characters going up against the Ancient dragon are going to have mostly +5 items.
+5 Armor
+5 NA
+5 Deflection
+3 Dex (+4 to physical scores)
Base +18
Base +25 with shield

So while the attacks have gone up 10 (and more due to dragon having more buffing powers) the characters AC has gone up +7, and any kind of Barkskin, cats grace, etc. won't surpass the items.

I feel like this would work fairly well if iterative and secondary attacks were still at the cascading full/-5/-10/-15, but breaks down when the first several attacks are at basically full.

Seems like the formulas work fairly well at lower levels where mundane AC improves first, then the magic items kick in, but once all the items top out, the "to hit" numbers keep on going...

Hmmm.

Trailblazer laid out the 3.x statistical analysis pretty well.

With appropriate AC boosts the Martial character limits the success rate of CR equivalent monster to around 30% until roughly CR 17-18. After that point the monster's attack bonus scales up too rapidly and effective PC AC is capped.

This presupposes the following by level 15:

Armor Bonus + Dex: +9
Enhancement Bonus to Armor: +5
Shield Bonus: +7
Deflection: +5
Natural Armor: +5

For a total of AC 41.

A more optimum strategy looks for a 50% miss rate with against primary attacks. For level 15 that is AC 34.

Considering the suggested Attack Bonus for a CR 15 creature is suggested to be 24 that seems just about right.

Factor in other AC boosters:
Combat Expertise +5 (I know nobody ever gets it)
Dodge Feat +1
Mithral Armor +2
Tower Shield +2

plus PF additions like Fighter Armor training and it's pretty clear that a high AC strategy is viable against CR appropriate foes until high level play.

Using dragons as an example isn't a great idea because a) they are significantly under CRed in both PF and 3.x and as full caster they have the ability to buff like crazy or target weak saves.

The problem is that a ton of people play with the PCs vs 1 or 2 CR +3 monster game which heavily advantages one-shot kill/disable strategies and disadvantages defensive strategies like AC boosting.

Trailblazer laid out the 3.x statistical analysis pretty well.

With appropriate AC boosts the Martial character limits the success rate of CR equivalent monster to around 30% until roughly CR 17-18. After that point the monster's attack bonus scales up too rapidly and effective PC AC is capped.

This presupposes the following by level 15:

Armor Bonus + Dex: +9
Enhancement Bonus to Armor: +5
Shield Bonus: +7
Deflection: +5
Natural Armor: +5

For a total of AC 41.

A more optimum strategy looks for a 50% miss rate with against primary attacks. For level 15 that is AC 34.

Considering the suggested Attack Bonus for a CR 15 creature is suggested to be 24 that seems just about right.

Factor in other AC boosters:
Combat Expertise +5 (I know nobody ever gets it)
Dodge Feat +1
Mithral Armor +2
Tower Shield +2

plus PF additions like Fighter Armor training and it's pretty clear that a high AC strategy is viable against CR appropriate foes until high level play.

Using dragons as an example isn't a great idea because a) they are significantly under CRed in both PF and 3.x and as full caster they have the ability to buff like crazy or target weak saves.

The problem is that a ton of people play with the PCs vs 1 or 2 CR +3 monster game which heavily advantages one-shot kill/disable strategies and disadvantages defensive strategies like AC boosting.

I think there is also the understanding that when you get to near epic levels you have access to so many feat chains, artifact level magic items, buffs, etc...you are going to likely have not only +6 modifiers to all important stats, but have acquired tombs for use on key stats, along with all of the specialized equipment for your role in the party.

And also, it is understood you are going to die a lot. Which is fine, because you are really high level and have tons of ways to come back as long as someone in the party lives.

Every times we have gotten close to epic, the number of deaths goes way up, for every class. Just the nature of the beast at that level.

It really is 4 different games. Low level around 1-4 when that +1 sword is amazing, mid level around 5-12 when magic is in play but still kind of cool, High level 13-17 where you balk at anything less than +3, and Big Damn Hero 17+ where if it isn't a an artifact it's probably in the sell pile.

Vuron, people get combat expertise because is a prerequisite of improved trip. moreover, the feat is not useless by his own.

It is considered a feat tax because people are often unable to use it properly - just try to combine it with a defensive weapon, and not as a constant bonus but in specific part of the combat.

Said this, I agree with the rest of the post.

The problem is that a ton of people play with the PCs vs 1 or 2 CR +3 monster game which heavily advantages one-shot kill/disable strategies and disadvantages defensive strategies like AC boosting.

That doesn't show that AC loses relevancy as PCs level. That shows that the GM is using more powerful opponents which changes everything. Against appropriate CR monsters, AC maintains relevancy. You don't even have to focus on it to the exclusion of everything else. Of course, what everyone considers "relevant" is going to be what's in contention. It's also very easy to make minor adjustments to hit and to AC during combat without resorting to magic so even non-casters can improve things for themselves.

Just for the lulz, a 20th level S&B fighter with these

Dusty Rose Ioun Stone (+1 ins AC) 5k
Ring of Protection + 5 50k
Belt of + 6 Physical Stats 144k
Armor + 5 light fortification (Mithral) 45k
Heavy Shield + 5 25k
Defending +5 Shortsword 72k
Amulet Natural Armor 50k
Tome of Dexterity +1 27,5k

and the Shield Focus/ GSF feats goes up to 51 assuming enough DEX. The 51 becomes a 62 with combat expertise and full use of the shortsword.

(I nevertheless assumed an high point buy, and the damage output would be low - total spent 418,5 k).

Now, this should not be taken seriously because such fighter could be screwed in other 2000 ways - but just to point out that AC can be higher.