So I have found a trend I was really not expecting in my game. AC just keeps rising faster and faster to the point where it is badly outstripping the attack bonus.
I went looking for a 'behind the veil' type end note discussing BAB but there is nothing in the players handbook on this so I'm stuck making a wild guess regarding the designers intentions in terms of average attack bonus and character levels.
So here is my contention about how to-hit is supposed to work versus Armour class:
A fighter of low level but decked out in most of the good mundane equipment that one can buy has a roughly 25% chance to hit another similarly equipped fighter.
When these fighters get to the point where they have a second attack their attack bonus - along with strength modifiers and magic items should see to it that they generally hit each other 50% of the time with their first attack and 25% of the time with their second attack. This progression continues so that when their are three attacks then the first is likely to work 75% of the time, the second 50% of the time and the third 25% of the time and so the progression continues.
OK that is my contention of how this ought to work and I have a hunch that this was the original idea about how this sort of thing would work. After all the Base Attack Bonus is free and it constantly rises so eventually martial warriors should have phenomenal attack bonuses, right? It even makes a certain mount of sense - one can, later on, do 5 point power attacks and give up about 25% of the chance to hit but gain lots of damage. However, this only works if ones chance to hit is gaining on the bad guys ACs. No point in doing this if the ACs are climbing as fast as the Attack Bonus since losing 25% of your chance to hit when you only have a 25% chance to hit with your first attack (and need natural 20s with all your other attacks) is a lousy pay off. Furthermore unless the Attack Bonus rises faster the AC the second and third attack become essentially useless.
OK that brings me to my problem. I've found, at my table, that so far AC is rising as fast or faster then the Attack Bonus. Not so much with the monsters but really notably with players and NPCs. The problem seems to be that there are a lot more ways to up armour class then their are ways to up your Attack Bonus. To make your chance to hit better you have your BAB. You can increase your strength and you can add enhancement bonus' to your magical weapons. There are a few other possibilities but they are hard to come buy, usually a special character trait or maybe a buff bonus from a spell. Hence, in general these are the three things that increase the chance for a character to hit.
OK to increase your AC you have a dodge bonus that can be upped by increasing your Dexterity. You can increase your Armour Bonus, you can increase your shield bonus you can increase your Natural Armour Bonus and you can increase your Deflection Bonus. There are a few others but they don't come up much and are hard to get.
Essentially the problem is that there are about twice as many ways to increase ones Armour Class as their are ways to increase your Attack Bonus. This means that even if one can only afford to buy magic items that increase all of these by +1 your AC is jumping up at about twice the rate as the Attack Bonus. Furthermore AC seems to have a higher maximum then the Attack Bonus. Most of these things max out at some point but if you buy the maxed out version of everything your going to have a higher AC then you have Attack Bonus - and this is with good hitters like fighters. Characters like Rogues and Clerics are really left in the dust.
Anyone else notice this at their table? My players are at about 10th level now and attack bonus tend to be about +15 but ACs average about +35. My players need like 19's and 20's if they where to try and hit each other and a roughly similiar number when facing off against NPCs as well. Their secondary attacks are basically pointless. Power attack is a wasted feat as well, unless its used as part of a chain to get something else.
However the Monsters really don't benefit from this sort of thing with many of them have much much more modest ACs - which has odd effects on my players - they encounter nasty undead or dangerous demons and thank their lucky stars that its not something truely scary - like a Dwarf. It seems to me like somewhere along the line the system went out of whack.
Its really a trade off. A +15 to hit is LOW for martial classes @ 10th level, IME. Now as for you escalating ACs, you are the DM yes? Which means You control the ACs. If you have been giving NPCs these high acs, but your players have been whacking them, taking the loot, and then turning it against you, then its really YOUR fault. Comforting, no? :) To fix this, here's a few ideas:
1. Stop handing out gear, if possible. Use lots of low level mooks that are easy to plow through, but they still require time to mow down. Use high power NPCs sparingly, and have plenty of ways for them to get away.
2. Hit em with lots of impediments to movement, stats, etc. Hit em with touch attacks, incorporeal critters, etc. Or a rust monster. Or a cleric with anti-magic field readied. Targeted dispel magic does wonders to keep this stuff in check too.
3. Area effects (fireballs, lightning, etc) don't go against AC.
4. It also sound like your PCs don't have a lot invested in weaponry- hit em with something (a golem perhaps) that requires them to have certain materials on hand. Or something like giants or other high HP critters that are easy to hit, but take forever to wear down. And coincidentally, have high to hits.
5. Catch em flat footed, at night, or in places they can't go armored.
Keeping firmly in mind almost any of these tactics will elicit cries of unfairness, killer DM-itude, or what have you. So have fun :)
|
I have noticed that ACs for PCs grow at a much faster rate than for most monsters but Monster attack bonuses are way higher than PCs usually. I have fought monsters at 8th level that were CR9 that would only miss on rolls of under 3 on a d20 or even worse.
T-rex- +20 bite. CR9 as an example. The system is sort of balanced for fighting monsters but it seems like fighting humanoids gets a bit wonky with the armor stuff.
I don't have a solution for you, the system isn't perfect but it is good. Much better than any prior editions.
FH
Its really a trade off. A +15 to hit is LOW for martial classes @ 10th level, IME. Now as for you escalating ACs, you are the DM yes? Which means You control the ACs. If you have been giving NPCs these high acs, but your players have been whacking them, taking the loot, and then turning it against you, then its really YOUR fault. Comforting, no? :) To fix this, here's a few ideas:
It is not really killing them that is the problem. By 10th level I can use an unending array of enemies with spells, spell like abilities and supernatural abilities that completely ignore their obscene ACs. In fact I figure there is a better then even chance that the wizard PC dies at the end of the current adventure. 10th level Wilder with cranial deluge is almost certain to kill the poor player and there is not all that much he can do except learn that, as a wizard he cannot afford to allow even a single attack to be targeted on him because, at higher levels, even a single ranged attack can be one that is nearly certainly fatal.
My issue is really with the AC vs. Attack Bonus trend and if other DMs have noticed this as well.
Your right that my +15 Attack Bonus is low but not really low. Does not change my thesis anyway. I figure the martial players have, on average, +10 BAB, +3 weapon, +5 from strength. Call it +18 which means they hit the AC of 35 with 17+ and their secondary attacks need natural 20s.
As for me giving them this stuff. Actually I'm following their trend not the reverse. Their buying this stuff. The fact that magical armour is cheaper just encourages them. So they tend to have +2 armour, +2 shield, +2 ring of protection, +2 amulet of natural armour and some descent dex bonus. Maybe a few feats and such thrown in as well. My NPCs would have +1 versions of most of this stuff and I'll make up the difference with something like a +5 potion of barkskin.
I have noticed that ACs for PCs grow at a much faster rate than for most monsters but Monster attack bonuses are way higher than PCs usually. I have fought monsters at 8th level that were CR9 that would only miss on rolls of under 3 on a d20 or even worse.
T-rex- +20 bite. CR9 as an example. The system is sort of balanced for fighting monsters but it seems like fighting humanoids gets a bit wonky with the armor stuff.
I don't have a solution for you, the system isn't perfect but it is good. Much better than any prior editions.FH
I've noticed this to a certain extent but all it means is I love vermin and animals, these two get lots of HD for their CR and can keep up with the madness (though that T-Rex has only a 25% chance per round of actually hitting AC 35). Dragons are great for this as well but things like Undead or most of the rest of the types are just left in the dust. They can't keep up because their BAB is just not rising fast enough when compared to their CRs. That said most of them do have some kind of special ability that will help.
I also think this aspect is actually worse then in older editions. In older editions you could not just go to the magic store - not in most campaigns anyway. That meant you were dependent on the DM to hand out all these items that grant magic benefits to armour and most DMs would not consistently hand out items that granted a billion different bonuses to ones AC. Ultimately BAB outpaced AC. In fact I think that its these old editions that influenced the current concept of BAB. Fighters get +1 per level. Clerics a little less and Mages have never heard of BAB.
I'd have to double check but my hunch is the numbers are basically the same as 2nd edition. What has changed is the ability to increase armour class in 3.5. There are lots of ways to do it, and the pricing scheme encourages the behaviour. High plus weapons are frightfully expensive where as lots and lots of lower plus AC enhancing items are comparatively cheap. For the same price as a +3 weapon I can buy a +2 shield, +2 armour, +2 ring of protection and a +1 amulet of natural armour.
So why do you let them go to the magic store? Its your campaign, you are the DM, you decide what is and is not available. This can be either "no, we don't carry those, but we can make them for you in bonusx1 week" or" the king doesn't allow us to make them for commoners." They could have to promise allegiance to the king/ruler, perform some sort of quest, or just find a black market source that inflates the price to cover his risk. Have a buyer at the gate of every town that will give them 30% of book value for magical loot, in the name of the ruler. When they complain tell them that the kings broker is the only legal source for magical materiel.
But as to the AC v BAB issue, in the FTR v WIZ thread, it was mentioned a good ratio for martial types is ac=level +20. That seemed high to me, but it makes alot of sense IF you are PC. PCs SHOULD be hard to hit (that whole heroic thing). Its the DnD equivalent of the massed stormtrooper effect :) I can't really give good input on older editions, I gave up 2nd ed/AD&D in the late 80s, and it was too confusing/unwieldy to get back into until 3rd ed. IMO, of course.
I'm having a hard time seeing eye-to-eye with you on this Jeremy, though it does explain why CRs have undergone some modification over the past few monster manuals. I think the main problem with your PCs is that their ACs are way to high for 10th-level characters. A 10th-level PC should have about 50,000 gp worth of gear. a +2 suit of armor, +2 shield, +2 ring and +2 amulet add up to about 32,000 gp alone.
A lot of people ignore the CR/EL treasure limits (including some friends I know), and then whinge about how the PCs are too powerful or not powerful enough. Well, guess who made them that way...? If they followed the criteria they would have fewer problems.
To run a successful game you also have to know what the PCs intend to do. If you give them magic item shops then they are going to use them. Done deal. And with ready access to the items they want problems are sure to arise at some point along the line. This is one of the reasons legacy items are becoming more favorable. PCs are willing to hang onto a suit of chain +1 instead of swapping for chain +3 if they know the chain +1 will give them greater powers later on.
There are multiple ways you can fix this. Increase the CRs of the monsters they are fighting, use touch attack creatures more, start destroying or stealing some of their better items, catch them when they are rising from sleep, etc. The trouble is you can't overdo it unless you want the players to get upset with you.
I'm having a hard time seeing eye-to-eye with you on this Jeremy, though it does explain why CRs have undergone some modification over the past few monster manuals. I think the main problem with your PCs is that their ACs are way to high for 10th-level characters. A 10th-level PC should have about 50,000 gp worth of gear. a +2 suit of armor, +2 shield, +2 ring and +2 amulet add up to about 32,000 gp alone.
Uh...yeah - throw in a +2 weapon, gauntlets of ogre power, +2 cloak of resistance and the last 1000 gp or so goes to their their share of party healing and maybe a potion. That is pretty much the archetype for the three martial characters in my campaign. The Ninja, Wizard and Cleric vary from this a little but only the wizard varies heavily. Both the Ninja and the Cleric probably have only +1 weapons and skip the gauntlets of ogre power to use the money money to buy other things (like +2 gloves of dexterity).
A lot of people ignore the CR/EL treasure limits (including some friends I know), and then whinge about how the PCs are too powerful or not powerful enough. Well, guess who made them that way...? If they followed the criteria they would have fewer problems.
Their within the wealth by level guidelines. I'm not sure what other players are buying but it seems to me that the list above is pretty close to optimal in terms of bang for the buck and that is more or less what my players have settled on. They'll probably more or less follow this path for the rest of the campaign as well. Multiple +3 items is better then a +4 hence upgrade every thing to +3 before considering the +4 stuff. Could just be my players but it seems like a good system to me - nobody else has experienced this? What do your players buy?
To run a successful game you also have to know what the PCs intend to do. If you give them magic item shops then they are going to use them. Done deal. And with ready access to the items they want problems are sure to arise at some point along the line.
This seems to indicate that the problem is that 2nd edition had it right in terms of magic items. Players should not be allowed to buy them. I mean if a +2 shield can't be acquired then what can? Nothing their picking up strikes me as particularly unusual. Its pretty much the most mundane and traditional stuff in the books.
There are multiple ways you can fix this.
I'm not really looking to fix it so much as see if other DMs are finding this trend as well. I don't have a shadow of a doubt that given the monster manuals and an hour and a half I can make an outline for a combat heavy adventure where I don't ask what their ACs are even once. “Make a Will Save, save for half, save or die, what is your Reflex?' would be the only things they hear out of my mouth. By 10th level the DM can easily circumvent AC or throw in some spice by alternating saving throw heavy encounters with 40 HD vermin and creatures with touch attacks. I do, however, feel that the whole AC vs. Base Attack Bonus interaction is off kilter and I'm wondering if others have noticed this as well..
+15 attack bonus at 10th level? Good god, my players typically had that at 15th!
It's funny you're having this problem, because my friends and I have always felt that it was easier to raise attack bonus than AC. Sure, armor enhancements cost 50% as much as weapons, but all the other items have always been seen as rather expensive. At least, enough that buying up a lot of them to make ACs really high would completely throw out the option of having a good weapon, and no one wanted to sacrifice that. Especially since it wouldn't really help against many monsters that have insane attack bonuses. Perhaps this initial perception led the players to never run the math and we were wrong.
I think you're overlooking the value of spells, however. Potions of greater magic weapon, heroism, and even bardic music outside of the spell range, all stack and are "easier" to acquire than bonuses to armor (since that costs money and the others don't, or at least not much). The attack bonus boost isn't permanent, but it lasts long enough.
So, I would look into the various options for increasing attack bonuses a bit more. Also, if they want to spend all their money on high ACs and neglect everything else, let them! That's their own stupidity. Don't follow in their trend, necessarily; diversify the opponents they face. If all they do is confront melee bruisers, then they're just being smart. What they need is to face some special attack users along with that. Have them face off against a cadre of wizards. Their low attack bonuses might actually enable the wizards to buff their ACs enough to stand a good chance against their attacks, while the wizards' own spells completely ignore armor. Or have the wizards fly out of reach.
Face off against a dragon. Even if it can't hit them easily (unlikely), the breath weapon should be scary enough.
Sounds to me like they've just gone up against fighter-types too often and/or are going through some sort of "phase" where they like the experiment with high ACs. Well, that's fine, but it will come back to bite them in the ass. A balanced character is always better than a super-specialized one.
EDIT- I typed this while the above was being typed, so I missed it. To answer your question about "have I experienced this?", the answer is no. My players have always thought that AC was nice, but where's it really at is weapons and attacks, along with items granting unusual special properties. They have viewed them to be both more fun and more pragmatic. They'd rather one-shot the BBEG with a greataxe than go into some protracted AC war, which they would consider pointless and boring.
See, the reverse works for me. The average AC of my party is about 25 and they are all 11th-level, plus the attack bonus of most of my monsters is over +10.
One of the things I do to counteract the whole buying magic items thing is to limit their opportunities to do so (maybe once every 3 or so levels for everything save potions and scrolls). Of course, the campaign I run is conducive to this so it's not really much of a problem, and I let my players know beforehand so they don't get upset.
Another thing I do is to make sure to give them cool magic items that they don't really want to trade in. The key here is magic items that the players will think will be useful at some later date. My latest adventure is sprinkled with treasures that cater to the PCs strengths and weaknesses (both perceived and real) and the new Magic Item Compendium has been a real help in achieving this.
My biggest problems to date have been PCs whose abilities are difficult to cater for. I have a druid with the shapeshifting alternate druid ability, and as such the typical druid magic items have been not appropriate. Unfortunately, he has also not been reading the rules on it thoroughly enough and has been making annoying errors (one can say I'm partially to blame/responsible for this).
So why do you let them go to the magic store?
'cause all the kids are doing it and I want to be cool like them. They get to go to a magic stores because in 3.5 you get to go to magic stores - even in crusty old Greyhawk.
Its your campaign, you are the DM, you decide what is and is not available. This can be either "no, we don't carry those, but we can make them for you in bonusx1 week" or" the king doesn't allow us to make them for commoners." They could have to promise allegiance to the king/ruler, perform some sort of quest, or just find a black market source that inflates the price to cover his risk. Have a buyer at the gate of every town that will give them 30% of book value for magical loot, in the name of the ruler. When they complain tell them that the kings broker is the only legal source for magical materiel.
For stuff like a +2 ring of protection? The stuff they desire is so mundane that this sort of thing just does not seem to fly. I can outlaw magic stores, sure, though it seems like a retroactive step back into the hoary days of 1st and 2nd edition. Also we end up really contravening the wealth by level guidelines - though I guess they didn't have those in 2nd edition either.
But as to the AC v BAB issue, in the FTR v WIZ thread, it was mentioned a good ratio for martial types is ac=level +20.
Mine feel that level +25 is a better option.
That seemed high to me, but it makes alot of sense IF you are PC. PCs SHOULD be hard to hit (that whole heroic thing). Its the DnD equivalent of the massed stormtrooper effect :)
It is out of control if you ask me. Stormtrooper effect is one thing but every 'stormtrooper' needing a natural 20 is fundamentally broken.
I can't really give good input on older editions, I gave up 2nd ed/AD&D in the late 80s, and it was too confusing/unwieldy to get back into until 3rd ed. IMO, of course.
I agree that 3.5 is better then 2nd ed. but here I suspect that they held to a 2nd edition convention and its messed up one of the most core parts of the system. I've found myself in agreement with Sebastian - give me 4th edition already and fix some of this stuff. Increasing the BAB rate and making it so that armour is twice the price of weapons instead of the reverse would go a long way to alleviating this issue. PCs and NPCs should be able to hit each other and their bonus attacks at higher BABs should have some value.
Actually Jeremy, I'd like to see the breakdown of your parties AC. If a PC fighter wears a suit of +2 mithril full plate, carries a +2 heavy shield, wears an amulet of natural armor +2 and a ring of protection +2, then his AC with a 17 Dexterity would be 31. With feats like Dodge or Combat Expertise this could get even higher, but this would involve possible penalties for the PC in question.
A different character (say a 10th-level ninja) with a 20 Wisdom and Dexterity, a similar ring and amulet to those mentioned above, and with Dodge and mage armor cast on him would have an AC of 31.
In both cases it takes more than just four +2 magic items to get an AC of 35. I don't mean to imply that you are incorrect or doing something wrong, but perhaps the PCs are adding in a couple of bonuses twice. Have you examined their character sheets in detail lately?
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I can't say I've had this experience, but then again, I am prone to doing a reboot before hitting 10th level. My experience is that there are 1-2 characters who require an 18+ from most baddies to hit (typically the cleric, fighter, and paladin), a handful that can be hit on a 15 or better, and the back row is screwed if they even get targeted.
I think the game is intentionally designed to favor defense for the players. That way characters can stay in combat longer thereby having more chances to use their nifty abilities and what not. AC rises faster than attack bonuses for PC's; as do saves as compared to spell DC's.
It sounds to me like your players have been playing long enough to find the optimal combo and are willing to choose to allocate their resources to defense rather than offense. I'd take a look and see what else they could be buying with their money. With 50k, they could be running around with a +4 weapon rather than all that armor. It's unusual that all the players have chosen defense over offense, but it is a sound (if unsexy) strategy.
And let me say again, that as always, I am impressed by your style of DMing. Yeah, you can arbitrarily restrict their access to treasure, but I agree that the DM fiat is a tool of last resort.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
EDIT- I typed this while the above was being typed, so I missed it. To answer your question about "have I experienced this?", the answer is no. My players have always thought that AC was nice, but where's it really at is weapons and attacks, along with items granting unusual special properties. They have viewed them to be both more fun and more pragmatic. They'd rather one-shot the BBEG with a greataxe than go into some protracted AC war, which they would consider pointless and boring.
I missed this when posting. I agree with Saern - most players will focus on cool items for attacking first and then pick up some defensive items afterwards. The PHBII treasure tables support this trend as well, advising players to basically buy the best weapon they can, then the best armor, then some additional items (which do usually end up including some extra AC items). Your players are allocating more than half their gp resources to defense. It's an unusual decision, particularly when all the party members do it, and that's why I think you're having a problem.
Mundane-ness is in the eyes of the beholder. If a +2 ring is important enough for them to spend the equivalent of several years wages on, its important enough that the governing authorities would likely want to know who is purchasing them and why. For a modern analogy, you can pick up a shot gun or hunting rifle at most Wal-Marts and be out in under 15 minutes. For a hand gun (more easily concealed, just as deadly at close ranges) there's a hell of a lot more paper work, and usually a state liscencing requirement. For a fully automatic, military grade weapon, you have to have a federal license, pay a huge fee, and still can only transfer the to other FFL holders. Detect Magic cast by a low level mook caster at the gate of the town should quickly allow a ruler to know what he is dealing with. Its the DnD equivalent of the TSA :)
IMC, my meatshield has an AC in the high 20s at 8th level, and he hits fairly often (+14 or something). Ok. But he is usally going toe to toe with the ogre barbarians, or trying to plow through the mooks while the rest of the party slings arrows and spells from cover. I'm ok with his AC, cuz it means I don't have to pull punches when I plan engagements. 3/6 players having an AC this high means they have decided as a party to not get hit, which decreases their abilty to have wands, scrolls, etc around when they need them. IMO, anyway :)
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Mundane-ness is in the eyes of the beholder. If a +2 ring is important enough for them to spend the equivalent of several years wages on, its important enough that the governing authorities would likely want to know who is purchasing them and why. For a modern analogy, you can pick up a shot gun or hunting rifle at most Wal-Marts and be out in under 15 minutes. For a hand gun (more easily concealed, just as deadly at close ranges) there's a hell of a lot more paper work, and usually a state liscencing requirement. For a fully automatic, military grade weapon, you have to have a federal license, pay a huge fee, and still can only transfer the to other FFL holders. Detect Magic cast by a low level mook caster at the gate of the town should quickly allow a ruler to know what he is dealing with. Its the DnD equivalent of the TSA :)
Except arbitrary limitation on magic items is a poor solution to the problem. Jeremy is running his game within and by the core rules. The core rules allow players to purchase items. The core rules allow the items to stack. I'm sure he's aware that he can arbitrarily say "oh, well, they just ran out of magic rings, sorry." but is looking for data regarding other people's games to determine if the problem is unique to his table or a flaw in the system in need of correction. My guess is that rather than restrict the trade in magic items (which always ends up creating more work on the DM system and has all the failings of any command economy) he is trying to determine if the prices need to be adjusted or stacking needs to be limited.
Everyone is aware of DM fiat, particularly when it comes to magic items. It's a solution, but it's a s%&~ty solution.
Right, got that. How is changing stacking rules or prices any less DM stress than having a "fluff" oriented reasoning? DM: "Ok, Dodge bonuses no longer stack." Players:"What?!?!?!? WHAaaaa!!!" Generally, I prefer to change the social rules vice the crunchy rules, but each DM has their own style. Player ability to purchase magic items is in the DMG, NOT the PHB. Anything in the DMG is an optional rule, used at the DMs whim, IMO. Applied consistently and fairly, of course, but at the perogative of the DM. To arbitrarily change a rule so mage armor no longer stacks with shield, or the rogues dex based AC bonus, seems to me to go farther than what I suggested. The mechanic isn't busted, its just like you said: the players have decided to put their wealth and powers (feats, skills, etc) in this basket. I'd break their eggs :)
I trust Phil L.'s calculations so I am interested in the AC breakdown of your players as well.
Furthermore I can tell you that I do not suffer your problem, mine is the reverse, I wish my players would spend more on AC or grasp the concept of buffing. Even if they try their best it's only 20+. This means that anything with an attack of +10 is going to hit them 50% of the time. Luckily they do know how not to get hit.
My players are about 6th level now.
It sounds like these characters put way to much of their GP in AC bonusses.. I run an 8th level melee character with an AC of 18 and it isn't very hindering..
If they put 60% of their gold into AC bonusses, they will lag behind on many other fields. Most of these have been noted already, but just hit them with stuff that negates armor.
Most enemies should be able to come up with something to negate their armor when they figure out normal attacks aren't cutting it. Plus, the party will have a reduced access to scrolls, wands, potions, back-up weapons and probably any and all 'just in case' items.
I don't think the game is broken, it just player choices. If you put everything in AC, it will be high. Just as you attack bonus will be high if you put everything there.
But any smart enemy will know that you take an opponent down by attacking his weak spot, not his strong spot.
Sundering that shield or that armor does wonder to lower the AC on troublesome PCs.
Same goes with touch attacks.
If they have high ACs, they must have low damage or low saves...varying the stategy will make them vary theirs.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Mundane-ness is in the eye of the beholder.
I just thought I would chime in on the irony of this statement since, in the antimagic cone emitted by a beholder's eye, magical items do, in fact, become mundane. :D
I've never really had a problem with high ACs in my games. In fact, most of the time it seems like AC stops mattering beyond level 12 or so. By then, most monsters of appropriate CR have attack bonuses that allow them to hit even the highest ACs at least 50% of the time. The few monsters that lack a high attack bonus have methods of attack that circumvent armor (spells, special abilities, etc.). The only problems I've run into is against other classed humanoids. Using the NPC wealth tables, a 12th level NPC fighter will have great difficulty against a 12th level PC fighter simply because of the massive gap in gear value. Not to mention PCs tend to have higher and more optimized stats than NPCs.
On the flip side, monsters (especially at higher levels) have ACs that are far beyond the PCs attack bonuses and practically require that some methods be employed to either lower their AC or boost the fighter's attack bonus. I had a fighter/blackguard who was level 18 whose AC was somewhere in the high 20s. He had +5 full plate, a ring of protection (+3 or 4, I think), and had cast protection from good on himself in preparation for a fight with a Trumpet Archon. My total attack bonus was also in the high 20s. With a +4 weapon, weapon focus, greater weapon focus, my +18 BAB, and a 20 Strength I ended up at +29 before buff spells. The Trumpet Archon's BASE AC was 40. Then, the archon used a protection from evil spell to boost it even higher (to 42). I needed to roll a 13 or better to even hit this thing, and that was with my PRIMARY attack. It only got worse from there as the archon kept piling on spell effects and all I had was my sorcerer companion laying bull's strength on me. In the end, I scored a lucky crit (with a scythe...) and ended the fight rather effectively but man it was tough.
|
|
Regarding Magic Stores: In the Forgotten Realms the Red Wizards sell magic items to anyone and everyone that can buy their wares. The deal is they do not sell anything over 2000 gp in value. Hence Jeremy it seems you are allowing your PC's a carte blanche when they go to the store and buy what they want. There is no Wal-mart in D&D and allowing that type of buying system for magic items, well that is a huge mistake...
There is nothing wrong with a magic store but you have to remember a few things. Making magic items costs Xp (life force of a character and NPC's). I dont allow the PC's in my game to go to a magic store and request +5 armor for the standard DMG price. My NPC is giving up part of his life and he doesn't have an endless supply of XP to make items. If you are a doing a magic store with a merchant who buys and sells magic items thats a bit different, but really if a PC trades in a pretty mindane magic items and pulls off a suit of +5 chain mail, then thats crap.
I would suggest the Forgotten Realms Red Wizards rule when it come to magic items. If you are gonna have a magic store that is going to sell armor, weapons, ect then have a the store only have 10 itmes in there (roll randomly or choose them yourself) and jack up the price another 50 to 100% above DMG list. Of course if you are giving the PC's a large amount of gold then its a moot point.
And just because the other kids are having magic shops doesnt mean you have to. The players in my game have no magic weapons and only one has magic armor and they are 4th level and they dont have access to a Red Wizard store, but they do have access to a a potion maker and scrolls.
Also to add to Fatespinner's comment about AC being pointless at higher levels, he's kinda correct. In general, the attack bonus of higher level monsters and NPC's should hit like 75% of the time in the first attack, and like 50% the second, 35% the third, ect....you get the idea. Your players might be trying to reduce that chance for avoiding the first hit, but its a good chance the second third fourth strikes will miss...
|
|
Mundane-ness is in the eye of the beholder.I just thought I would chime in on the irony of this statement since, in the antimagic cone emitted by a beholder's eye, magical items do, in fact, become mundane. :D
I've never really had a problem with high ACs in my games. In fact, most of the time it seems like AC stops mattering beyond level 12 or so. By then, most monsters of appropriate CR have attack bonuses that allow them to hit even the highest ACs at least 50% of the time. The few monsters that lack a high attack bonus have methods of attack that circumvent armor (spells, special abilities, etc.). The only problems I've run into is against other classed humanoids. Using the NPC wealth tables, a 12th level NPC fighter will have great difficulty against a 12th level PC fighter simply because of the massive gap in gear value. Not to mention PCs tend to have higher and more optimized stats than NPCs.
On the flip side, monsters (especially at higher levels) have ACs that are far beyond the PCs attack bonuses and practically require that some methods be employed to either lower their AC or boost the fighter's attack bonus. I had a fighter/blackguard who was level 18 whose AC was somewhere in the high 20s. He had +5 full plate, a ring of protection (+3 or 4, I think), and had cast protection from good on himself in preparation for a fight with a Trumpet Archon. My total attack bonus was also in the high 20s. With a +4 weapon, weapon focus, greater weapon focus, my +18 BAB, and a 20 Strength I ended up at +29 before buff spells. The Trumpet Archon's BASE AC was 40. Then, the archon used a protection from evil spell to boost it even higher (to 42). I needed to roll a 13 or better to even hit this thing, and that was with my PRIMARY attack. It only got worse from there as the archon kept piling on spell effects and all I had was my sorcerer companion laying bull's strength on me. In the end, I scored a lucky crit (with a scythe...) and...
Just to point out Fate, the ring of protection and the protection for good wouldnt stack...both are deflection bonus.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I would suggest the Forgotten Realms Red Wizards rule when it come to magic items. If you are gonna have a magic store that is going to sell armor, weapons, ect then have a the store only have 10 itmes in there (roll randomly or choose them yourself) and jack up the price another 50 to 100% above DMG list. Of course if you are giving the PC's a large amount of gold then its a moot point.
And just because the other kids are having magic shops doesnt mean you have to. The players in my game have no magic weapons and only one has magic armor and they are 4th level and they dont have access to a Red Wizard store, but they do have access to a a potion maker and scrolls.
If you want to play the magic item market game, start a new thread. The core rules assume that you can sell and purchase magic items in a Wal-Mart like environment. That's why magic items have prices, that's why the DMG has gp limits for towns and cities. I'm not saying that it's not fine to deviate from that assumption, but it is the starting point for a discussion about magic items. So, not only do all the other kids have magic shops, the core rules have magic shops. A limited market for magic items is a house rule, not the other way around.
All this control of magic item discussion was a good answer in 2e. It doesn't cut it in 3e. Yeah, you can just cut off the whole buying/selling magic item subsystem, but you are making a significant change to the game. Tweaking the price of defensive items or stacking is a relatively minor fix. Converting the magic item purchasing system to a control economy is a big deal, not necessarily worth the work on the DM's part, and frequently a sore spot among players.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
no need to be an @ss. He wants ideas opinions and that is what this board is all about. I offered my point and what I do to control AC and atk bonus, so no need to be an @ss to people that offer an opinion.
Sorry to be curt. I get sick of seeing people point to the magic item system every time a problem gets brought up, particularly when it is to trot out the same old conventional wisdom from 2e. Yeah, it's the weakest of the subsystems and I'd be happy to discuss it, but the original query was not focused on this element. If I may paraphrase Jeremy yet again, the query was whether defense rises faster than offense, and might it be that the cost (note: not the general availability) of magic items was part of the problem. I don't think it's that hard to stay on that topic without wandering afield and dealing with whether or not magic items should be restricted in general.
|
|
Sorry to be curt. I get sick of seeing people point to the magic item system every time a problem gets brought up, particularly when it is to trot out the same old conventional wisdom from 2e. Yeah, it's the weakest of the subsystems and I'd be happy to discuss it, but the original query was not focused on this element. If I may paraphrase Jeremy yet again, the query was whether defense rises faster than offense, and might it be that the cost (note: not the general availability) of magic items was part of the problem. I don't think it's that hard to stay on that topic without wandering afield and dealing with whether or not magic items should be restricted in general.
no need to be an @ss. He wants ideas opinions and that is what this board is all about. I offered my point and what I do to control AC and atk bonus, so no need to be an @ss to people that offer an opinion.
Well staying with topic ;) I only had that problem once in a campaign where the players AC was outstripping the BAB/attack bonus style. That was mostly my fault for allowing that to happen, but in general I havent seen it happen in any game before or after that campaign I ran. Like others before and I am sure after it all depends on your DM style on whether the AC is outstripping the BAB, but in games at I have played in and at conventions that I attended, I havent seen the Ac outstripping the attack...
Potions of greater magic weapon, heroism, and even bardic music outside of the spell range, all stack and are "easier" to acquire than bonuses to armor (since that costs money and the others don't, or at least not much). The attack bonus boost isn't permanent, but it lasts long enough.
Ditto on the bardic music. It's one thing that makes them not lame! And don't forget the joys of flanking, or, even better, 3 guys "aiding another" while the greatsword guy Power Attacks. If it's still impossible to hit except on a 20, just go for broke and put your full BAB into Power Attack--you'll still hit about 1 time in 20, and you'll deal like a bajillion points of damage with a 2-handed weapon.
I never really encountered the "Too hard to hit" barrier in my games, but that maybe due to the fact that my style varies.
First off, as for the Wall-Mart Rules. For one, the item has to be up for purchase, as by the city resources rules. Second, there has to be one (or more) in stock ! Third there have to be no competing buyers - be they local nobility, speciality merchants or other adventurers. A bidding war necessarily drives up the prices (and may provide a nice plot-hook ). And where except in the biggest of cities would you get the top-notch weaponry, but that is also where the strongest buying competiton will be. Just how many +3 keen swords are there in your world and how many of these are up for sale ? Can you imagine the fierce competition for such a blade ?
There is no rule that PCs can buy a certain magic item for a certain price - the price listed in the DMG (and elsewhere) is the standard market value, and THAT is not set in stone, hence the term "standard" - it may vary, and certainly will vary, depending very much on local conditions and recent threats in the area.. or don't you think that in a country constantly threatened by undead hordes an "undead bane" weapon would be much more in demand ?
Anything else is, sorry to say, handing over the keys to the candy store to the kids..... and lowers a campaign down to the level of a a mindless computer game with an FAQ and a "walkthrough". Just my 2 cents, YMMV.
BUT - basically, it really comes down to the style of opposition the PCs have to face - if everything they encounter just keeps mindlessly hacking at them with big clubs, high AC is a viable defense.
On the other hand, should the players get constantly threatened with touch attacks (as from incoporeal undead), grappling monsters, magicians hurling rays (or damaging attacks not linked to the reflex save ), preferably from cover/invis, get struck by impossible to avoid AE effects or have their bulky equipment turned int a disadvantage ( situations of require mobility and environmental circumstances ) they might re-evaluate their shopping plans.
Also remeber that certain items can only be one/slot. Amulets, you can have only one, rings are limited to two... so, make their choices harder - which will they pick for the two ring slots - one of wizardry, protection or fire resistance ?
As for the opposition not hitting them - have the BBGs play smart(er) as well. Use high ground, flanking, aiding on attacks, mass grapples etc for good effect. Have them hide, drive the PCs prone etc.
Change the standard feats on monsters to take into account "more punch" feats from the non-core books as well - PCs do too, after all.
I for one use several "feat-loads" for my giants, so the players are never really sure what they face and play accordingly - a giant with "improved grapple" is bad news for a front row tank, especially if not acting alone. Same goes for one with Combat Reflexes and a slightyl altered stat array...
This not meant to cause wholesale PC-slaughter, but to make them vary and spread their investements more.... hmmm, widely ? "Ghost touch" protection for armour ? Items that facilliate blindsight ? "Spell storing" items - for a quick "gaseous form" or "Dimension Door" to escape a tight spot ? Sure thing, if all your players are picking the same items, either your campaign has become very predictable or your GMing style has.
and, put it this way - once the players have found an appearantly safe way to "beat the GM", things get boring. So, consider changing your tack as to be in their interest as well.
I have not noticed this problem at all; most pc seem to get to the 20's pretty quickly, but then just stay there; pretty much no matter what armor class you have your gonna get tagged; the heavier the armor class the worse off you seem to be in general. There are so many buffs to attack and other bonuses to attack that hitting is not a problem for pc's; though, i have noticed that a lot of monsters in the 4 to 7 hit dice range cannot hit pcs anywhere near where they should when pc's of that level have armor classes 20-25, seems a bit unfair to the players if I send to many mobs that use touch attacks and improved grapple. At this point; gnolls being a gms best friend; come in very handy; give a gnoll a couple barbarian levels and let him rage and he can hit just about anyone. Throw in a champion and a gnoll shaman and the pc's will have real problem on their hands.
If your players have so much magic; meaning you play a magic intense world; you need to be sure to give magic to your mobs; if your pc's have +2 sheild; well, maybe your mobs should have +2 weapons that proc a one time true strike or something; sounds like you just need to balance your game a bit; let your mobs use potions or something; dont cheat the mobs; if this has just gotten way out of hand and you need to balance things and dont want to just say; ok; peeps, I messed up and need to take back some stuff; there are other ways to go about it.
One - play in a swamp; all kinds of things can happen in a swamp; you can give a big penalty circumstance bonus to ac for treacherous footing; there are a lot of things in a swamp that attack from stealth an use grapple; things get lost in a swamp; lots of theives in a swamp too; small little fey like creepy theives that steal things - there is a reason people feared the fey - have the locals terrified of them too. Then there is sunder; make up some mobs that have improved sunder and go on a sunder spree, wield some giant sized two handed weapons on your raging ogres or gnolls and go to town. Cities are full of theives too; if you have something shiney; like a ring of +2 protection; you can bet some theif has his eye on it, there are reasons that people in cities look so poor and wealthy merchants travel with 15 or 20 guards.
Then there is the dreaded rust monster; they like swamps too; 6 or 7 of these things in a gang can ruin your day yet not hurt anyone.
these are just some ideas; sheesh dont use them all at once or your pc's might catch on even if the brightest is thick as a brick.
so there you have it; ubber up your mobs or tone down your pc's or change tactics so their primary ac doesnt matter. The whole point here is to make challenging adventures; if your pcs are just walking through everything then your overall game suffers.
oh; and there are things that if you fail your save; your items have to make saves; i kept this rule from 1e; so if you fail vs a fireball or dragon breath or things like that; all your items have to make saves. You might want to consider this as a tool.
@ Sebastian- Again, how is changing core rules like stacking more difficult than the DM having logical, in game reasons why stuff just plain is not available? You seem to feel that the magical wal-mart scenario represents some sort of golden oportunity, when in fact its the cause of many of the problems DMs face, IMO. You've mentioned a command economy twice, while ignoring the fact that the market in high end goods is inherently distorted by the prescence of a ruling class. Some one else pointed out that demand for undead killing weapons would be high in areas with lots of undead, thereby raising the price. Free market at its best. the DMG provides GUIDELINES for a DM. It is not a straight jacket that demand s they must follow it.
I HAVE encountered this AC-proliferation in my game. There's one guy in particular who puts the majority of his money into defense, and a couple of others who like to compare their PCs with others ("What AC have you got? 41? Oh, then I'd better spend more money on my AC"). Then I've got one player who never buys AC items unless someone forces him.
We're running Age of Worms, they're just achieves 20th level, and I think the highest AC is in the upper 40s, the rest of the group has high-30s, and one guy is probably still around 28 to 30 AC. But the "highest AC" fellow has had an AC of 41 or higher for several levels now.
For a time, I was balancing things out by varying the types of challenges. So in some fights, the high-AC guy could run around with impunity (although his damage-dealing ability was low enough that it might not matter so much); other fights, the Will saves were called for, and down he went. As I get to the big, bad guys at the end of this adventure path, I'm finding a new use for this phenomenon. The big monster full-attacks the high-AC guy, hits with every blow, and deals massive damage, slaying the high-AC guy in one round. The other players all immediately know that there's no way the big bad will miss any of them. Talk about fear.
To the side-conversation:
The core rules allow PCs to buy whatever they want. This doesn't mean there's some big Wal-Mart emporium with thousands of items on the shelves. It means that if you want to buy a Belt of Strength +6 and add the powers of a Belt of Flying to it, and you're in a large metropolis, there's a spellcaster who will take the commission - pay the guy and, however many days later for the item creation time, he'll hand you the belt. The rules support this conclusion, but never used to spell it out clearly anywhere, resulting in these sorts of debates - however, in the new Magic Item Compendium, they finally say it directly. I don't have a page reference, but in the Using Magic Items chapter, it says, basically - if the PCs want to buy a specific item, have the money for it, and are in a community large enough for it, let them buy it.
I realize you can run your game any way you want, but this is the default.
|
At 6th level, my 5 man party has the following AC's:
Fighter: +1 full plate, +1 heavy steel shield, +1 ring, +1 dex = 24
Cleric1: same as above = 24
Warlock: +1 chain shirt, +3 dex = 18
cleric/mage: mage armor, +1 ring, +3 dex = 18
Rogue: +1 mithril chain shirt, +4 dex, +1 amulet nat armor, shield spell (he uses wand of shield) = 24
I am playing a Dungeon magazine based campaign set in FR, so I am using RAW for magic item purchases since it is a high magic world. The largest town they have visited has a GP limit of 15,000gp, and they have never had that much cash in their hands as individuals.
If the party faces a CR 6 encounter, the poor opponent (assuming fighter-like BAB progression) has an attack bonus of +6 to +10 typically, meaning he hits the heavily armored people on a 14 - 18. (hitting between 15% and 35% of the time). Secondary attacks are, of course, much worse. Even equipping the opponent with a +1 magic weapon (to be "equal" with the +1 armors worn by the characters) does not help the opponent much, increasing to-hits by a mere 5%. This in essence agrees with the OP's point that AC outstrips BAB for monsters of equal CR.
However, one point to keep in mind is that an encounter with an ECL = avg party level is designed to use only about 20% of the party's resources. Assuming the opponent was a melee-type (the simplist assumption but I believe it applies to the other types of opponents if run properly) it will hit a heavily armored party member at least once in 3 rounds, on average (3 x 35% = 105%). Using a plain longsword, the damage dealt will be (4.5 avg damage + 4 STR) 8.5hp on average. Assuming he hits the fighter (assume avg hitpoints = 1st: 10 + 2-6:(5.5)*5 + con:(3*6) = 55.5 hp) the 8.5 points of damage is 8.5/55.5 = 15.3% of the fighter's hitpoints. That number is not only of the same order of magnitude as the designed-for 20%, but it allows a safety margin in favor of the characters in case of lucky rolls (like 2 attacks hitting or a crit) or lower-than-average hitpoints for the fighter. However, the safety margin is not so significant as to destroy the challenge of the encounter. Also note that this example does not consider a CR6 opponent with multiple attacks, improved grab or the like. These special abilities, while not significant enough to warrent a CR increase to 7 based on my example opponent, may well cause additional damage to the party, pushing it over the 20% threshold.
My conclusion from this is that armor needs to be this high relative to basic fighter-type BABs to assure a 20% damage rate per encounter of the same ECL. If armor were weaker or encounter BAB's higher than the ratios given, there would be a much greater chance of significant character damage or death in a given encounter, or alternately, each encounter would require a rest afterward to restore hitpoints, ability loss or to replenish spells to keep the characters on their feet in the next encounter. Frequent rests break the continuity of "heroic actions" and slow the game down, both things the 3.0 and beyond designers wanted to change. Higher armor bonuses relative to BAB's help ensure this ratio is maintained.
If anything, as character's progress, their ability to gain armor is outstripped by their opponent's BAB (ex look at the bulette, a CR7 opponent, one higher than my fictional CR opponent above, but with a +16 attack bonus instead of +10). As characters progress, the opponent frequently hits fighters it opposes at least once a round, and the only way the fighter can stay vertical throughout the fight is by buffs prior to the battle and healing help during the fight. While this may seem like it breaks the 20% per encounter rule, the encounter is designed to use 20% of the parties resources, which are typically hitpoints at lower levels and grows to include spells and buffs and mid combat healing at higher levels.
|
|
Re: The side conversation
=========================
While I wholeheartedly agree with the point that the DMG is a set of guidelines, I would like to point out something regarding the example given for an undead slaying weapon in a location with lots of undead. To provide a concrete example, lets use a +1 Heavy Mace of Undead Bane (list price 8312gp, available in a Small City or larger population center). The contention is that in a place where undead are prevelent, the price of this weapon may be double or treble the list price, or may be simply not available. This idea is based upon the rule of supply and demand and is a fair point to make. However, if one is going to apply the rules of supply and demand, one should do so to their logical conclusion. To wit, such price imblances are always acute in nature, and the market will always move to return the price of a demanded item to its norm. If prices really did treble on these items, every person capable of making them would switch to producing them since it is more economically adventagous to do so. Given the underlying assumption that such people either live within the markets they service or sufficent trade linkage exists to other markets that can supply the needed good, within the time it takes for news of this nature to travel plus manufacturing and shipping time, the market will be returned to normal. Thus it is unlikely, except in extremis, that market price will rise and stay high indefinately unless the city is under seige and is blockaded by undead.
Secondly, if one assumes that usefulness of an item drives the price of an item, then our Mace of Undead Bane may be far cheaper than list price, (say one half price plus a small markup) where it is not needed. What is the value of a Mace of Undead Bane to a trade city on the open plains, where few undead (for whatever reason) are seen? A good horse, a stout bow and the like are much more useful to people in this environment, so using the logic of demand, the +1 Mace of Undead Bane might be traded for a +1 Longbow (or its equivelent in coin), despite the inequity in their "DMG list price" values. Thus characters in a world goverened by the supply and demand you envision will be able to pick up items for far less than list in some areas and use them when needed, or alternately trade them at far higher than list price in cities that are desperate for the item.
D&D is a game, and despite the amount of real-world-ism we want to add to it, it behooves us not to look too deeply under the hood at these things. You can do so, of course, for the game is for each of us to make our own, discarding or adding what we like, but in the end it is just a game and a fantasy one at that, and thus poorly models real world issues. It is however, at least marginally internally consistent and regardless of what we each decide to change, we should pay attention to these consistencies and put at least as much thought into our changes as the designers put into the game in the first place.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
@ Sebastian- Again, how is changing core rules like stacking more difficult than the DM having logical, in game reasons why stuff just plain is not available? You seem to feel that the magical wal-mart scenario represents some sort of golden oportunity, when in fact its the cause of many of the problems DMs face, IMO. You've mentioned a command economy twice, while ignoring the fact that the market in high end goods is inherently distorted by the prescence of a ruling class. Some one else pointed out that demand for undead killing weapons would be high in areas with lots of undead, thereby raising the price. Free market at its best. the DMG provides GUIDELINES for a DM. It is not a straight jacket that demand s they must follow it.
The D&D rules are an inadequate and poor simulation of market economics and any attempt to use them as such is a mistake. Yes, I'm ignoring all the alleged market effects of a noble class, supply and demand, and all that good stuff that goes into a robust economic model because (a) it's very complex and (b) it has nothing to do with the game. The default rules are the magic item market, which is sort of a point buy system tacked onto the core rules. The DMG guidelines are the starting point, and DM's are free to modify them, but for those of us seeking to run a mostly core rules, the whole "you can restrict the magic item market" rings untrue.
It's easier to change the stacking bonuses because it's a one time decision. You tell the players "deflection bonuses and dodge bonuses don't stack." Ta-da mission accomplished.
Compare to limiting the magic item marketplace, particularly in an arbitrary way. "Okay, you arrive in town." Players "Great, I want to go buy a scroll of remove curse." DM (after consulting random tables, looking at the liquidity level of the local barons, and plotting supply and demand) "Oh, sorry, this town just suffered a curse and used up all their scrolls. Besides no one wants to spend their life force making you a spell anyway." Players, "But that's why we came to town!" DM writes in his notes that he will put a scroll of remove curse in the next adventure, but unfortunately, the cleric dies before the party gets it and it is not used.
As for my comments about a command economy, I am referring to having the DM be the central authority and planner for all loot the players receive. Doing this is going to create ineffeciencies as the players end up with items they don't want or can't use. By allowing the Wal-mart effect (or at least some form of magic item buying/selling) there is a safety valve for when the DM gives out a two handed sword right before the only character that can use it dies.
I'm not saying that you can't (or shouldn't) impose restrictions on the magic item market in your own campaign, but that's a useless answer in this context. Everyone knows they can limit magic items, that doesn't answer the core question of whether or not AC proceeds faster than attack bonuses.
I'm done talking about this subject. The core rules are what the core rules are, and though I think it is a fine thing to modify them, I am sick of people telling me that if I don't somehow impose limits on magic item markets I am not running the game correctly. I like to play D&D, not Merchant: the Bargain-Hunting.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
D&D is a game, and despite the amount of real-world-ism we want to add to it, it behooves us not to look too deeply under the hood at these things. You can do so, of course, for the game is for each of us to make our own, discarding or adding what we like, but in the end it is just a game and a fantasy one at that, and thus poorly models real world issues. It is however, at least marginally internally consistent and regardless of what we each decide to change, we should pay attention to these consistencies and put at least as much thought into our changes as the designers put into the game in the first place.
FTW and in much less text than I managed. Economics should serve game mechanics, not vice versa.
Anyone else notice this at their table?
Yep. Thank the expansion books such as Complete This and Compendium That.
I stand firmly with Sebastian and Lich-Loved. 1. Discussions of magic item availability aren't truly germane to the OP, but I'm going to procede with 2. Using real world analogies have very, very limited applications in D&D. I want to play a wizard who picks up a glowing sword and stabs a demon in the heart while hurling lightning bolts. Only the simplest laws of physics, economics, sociology, or whatever should apply. At least, that is the position of the RAW, which, unless noted otherwise, is what is dicsussed on these boards.
D&D is concerned with verisimilitude, speed and ease of play, and fun. Changing the game in favor of one to the detriment of another is rarely ever a good idea.
|
While I understand the general gist of what you are trying to say, I am not sure what side you are on. Are you saying that it is getting too difficult for the bad guys to hit the players or for the players to hit the bad guys? There are ways around each issue.
When these fighters get to the point where they have a second attack their attack bonus - along with strength modifiers and magic items should see to it that they generally hit each other 50% of the time with their first attack and 25% of the time with their second attack. This progression continues so that when their are three attacks then the first is likely to work 75% of the time, the second 50% of the time and the third 25% of the time and so the progression continues.
I feel that this is faulty reasoning. If it is assumed that the bad guys are progressing similarly to the players, then the difficulty should also progress similarly. I feel that the characters should only have a 25% chance (at best) to hit the big bad guy at the end regardless of what level they currently are at. The extra attacks are only worthwhile for natural 20s and for disposing of mooks.
Also, a few things to keep in mind with item creation -- Forge Ring requires a 12th level caster to take as a feat. If there are 12th level people with Forge Ring all over the place, you have a little different problem. Similarly, Amulet of Natural Armor requires the spell barkskin to create. That pretty much means druids which pretty much can eliminate most cities as far as where they can purchase this stuff.
A few other thoughts. AC improves if they purchase better equipment or really improve their Dex score. There are a few other ways to improve a character's AC, but it isn't a "natural" progression of the character. A character's to hits improve as they gain levels. Even if they keep a mundane sword, their to hit will still improve as they gain levels. I believe that the designers saw this and made it cheaper to improve their AC than to improve their ability to attack since their attacks will improve anyway.
Last thing -- there are a number of quick and easy ways to improve their to hit -- bless, prayer, weapon focus (and the whole weapon focus tree), flanking, and that green ioun stone are what quickly come to mind.
I guess that what I am saying is -- no, I don't see a problem with this. Occasionally my "mooks" have difficulty hitting the PCs (as they should) and occasionally they come across a creature that is significantly more difficult to hit and they may have to get a bit more creative (again, as it should be).
+15 attack bonus at 10th level? Good god, my players typically had that at 15th!
You must really play in a low magic campaign and have a low point buy. The martial classes get a BAB of +10 that means they only need to pick up an extra +5 from feats, strength and Magic. 16 strength and a +2 weapon would do it.
It's funny you're having this problem, because my friends and I have always felt that it was easier to raise attack bonus than AC. Sure, armor enhancements cost 50% as much as weapons, but all the other items have always been seen as rather expensive. At least, enough that buying up a lot of them to make ACs really high would completely throw out the option of having a good weapon, and no one wanted to sacrifice that. Especially since it wouldn't really help against many monsters that have insane attack bonuses. Perhaps this initial perception led the players to never run the math and we were wrong.
You get about a 2 for 1 deal when upping AC versus Attack Bonus. Also, even if you do have the cash for a +3 weapon or other magic, you almost certainly don't have the cash to get a +4 weapon. Not unless its the only thing you really have. Each plus adds a lot to the cost so its often cheaper to get many lower plus magic items then a single really high cost one. Now sometimes, especially in the case of the Arcane spell user the high price item is worth strongly considering as something like a ring of wizardry or a potent staff is just so awesome, however even here your talking about giving up lots of wands and half a library in scrolls for one sweet item. A possible but hard trade off.
I think you're overlooking the value of spells, however. Potions of greater magic weapon, heroism, and even bardic music outside of the spell range, all stack and are "easier" to acquire than bonuses to armor (since that costs money and the others don't, or at least not much). The attack bonus boost isn't permanent, but it lasts long enough.
Well you need a bard to do Bardic Music, heroism is a 5th level spell and one of only a couple that 10th level players have so its a pretty big sacrifice for a spell caster to pick up at this level. Magic Weapon Does not stack so if you have even a +1 weapon it won't help. That said there are a number of spells that will add a luck or moral bonus to to-hits but getting that number up beyond maybe +2 or maybe +3 is difficult.
So, I would look into the various options for increasing attack bonuses a bit more.
Ah your saying that this is one way for the NPCs to up the NPCs to hit. That does make some more sense - if they use a scroll of heroism then the NPCs can pump up their to hits and its cheaper then most magic items. That's worth considering. I often find my NPCs are a little rushed when the players appear on the scene. Buff time can be at a premium, however. Magic using NPCs usually only use a small percentage of their total buff spells before the players are on them. One of these days I plan to do a scene where the bad guys kick down the door on the surprised PCs and attack them in camp or some such with every possible buff spell pre-cast. But that type of encounter would be something I'd do occasionally and just as an interesting challenge for my PCs. Usually the PCs are the invaders with the BBEG decrying how the disgusting do-gooders are messing up his diabolical plans as they rush his lab.
Also, if they want to spend all their money on high ACs and neglect everything else, let them! That's their own stupidity. Don't follow in their trend, necessarily; diversify the opponents they face. If all they do is confront melee bruisers, then they're just being smart. What they need is to face some special attack users along with that. Have them face off against a cadre of wizards. Their low attack bonuses might actually enable the wizards to buff their ACs enough to stand a good chance against their attacks, while the wizards' own spells completely ignore armor. Or have the wizards fly out of reach.Face off against a dragon. Even if it can't hit them easily (unlikely), the breath weapon should be scary enough.
Sounds to me like they've just gone up against fighter-types too often and/or are going through some sort of "phase" where they like the experiment with high ACs.
Certainly true that I can do this and in fact I probably will. But I'm not sure how much it is really a bad tactic to raise ACs. Lets say that I choose to play Age of Worms and run it by the book. While there are lots of monsters in that AP that can get past good ACs there are a lot that can't and maybe more worth while is that a lot of monsters that do a little of A and a little of B. So the players have to deal with the special abilities (that's what hps, bonus to saves and clerics are for) and the ACs help when the bad guys follow up their special abilities with physical attacks. I guess what I'm saying is the players have not really screwed up except for the fact that I will nerf whatever they do and find another way to get them. Their AC buys make a fair bit of sense until I decide to rewrite all the encounters to make it a less potent a choice. If I'm playing most adventures out there by the book and not modifying to 'get' the PCs' then I think their option is pretty optimal all things considered.
Keep in mind that even for monsters with insane attack bonus', high AC is still very good. You can't keep the monster from hitting you but you can keep the monster from doing a 12 point power attack and adding +24 to the damage or whatever. That's what I have found when I face them against Dragons. Dragon can hit - sure. But Dragon hits, without power attacks, while fairly good are nothing that a fighter can't handle for a few rounds at least. More if the cleric can support him with healing. The Dragon's Breath Weapon bypasses the armour but your still in a better place - wounded by fire breath but some of the Dragons follow on attacks will miss and they should not hit for really crazy kinds of damage. The cleric can probably keep you going. In the case where the AC is lower the Dragon takes out half your hit points with its breath weapon and and then rips you apart in the follow on attack doing its whole claw/claw/bite/wing buffet/wing buffet/tail slap routine with an extra 10 or 20 points added to the damage from power attack. In this case a low AC fighter is probably just shredded while a high AC fighter is screaming 'Medic!'.
Hence high AC is a pretty good answer to even the really big monsters. Helps against many traps etc. The only thing its really weak against is magic using types that don't ever bother with physical attacks or creatures that rely on touch attacks. These types of creatures are a small minority of the encounters. Can't be good against everything but your optimum choice is to be good against as much as possible good AC will do that.. AC is part of the vast majority of encounters so upping it really is not a terrible plan. Though I suspect that raising saves becomes the most important task sometime around 12th level. By that point having saving throws through the roof is your best bet to live long and prosper.
Actually Jeremy, I'd like to see the breakdown of your parties AC. If a PC fighter wears a suit of +2 mithril full plate, carries a +2 heavy shield, wears an amulet of natural armor +2 and a ring of protection +2, then his AC with a 17 Dexterity would be 31. With feats like Dodge or Combat Expertise this could get even higher, but this would involve possible penalties for the PC in question.
A different character (say a 10th-level ninja) with a 20 Wisdom and Dexterity, a similar ring and amulet to those mentioned above, and with Dodge and mage armor cast on him would have an AC of 31.
In both cases it takes more than just four +2 magic items to get an AC of 35. I don't mean to imply that you are incorrect or doing something wrong, but perhaps the PCs are adding in a couple of bonuses twice. Have you examined their character sheets in detail lately?
Your right, of course, once I look at it. I'm reacting to the players ACs in actual combat (that is when I notice that they are out the wazoo). They probably have a combination of things getting them those last few points. Buffs, feats, a couple have a few points of natural armour from not being standard races.
Still 31 Buffed to 35 is not as bad as 35 buffed to 40. I guess I should be happy with that. I still think my general point that ACs escalate faster then Attack Bonus stands. Even if they only have 31 know its still a pretty extreme AC for 10th level characters. But this is closer to Enders AC = Level +20 then I had realized and is a strong point in an argument that the AC is not really as out of whack as I had thought. If I stay away from mooks for the BBEGs I'll probably notice their ACs somewhat less.
I missed this when posting. I agree with Saern - most players will focus on cool items for attacking first and then pick up some defensive items afterwards. The PHBII treasure tables support this trend as well, advising players to basically buy the best weapon they can, then the best armor, then some additional items (which do usually end up including some extra AC items). Your players are allocating more than half their gp resources to defense. It's an unusual decision, particularly when all the party members do it, and that's why I think you're having a problem.EDIT- I typed this while the above was being typed, so I missed it. To answer your question about "have I experienced this?", the answer is no. My players have always thought that AC was nice, but where's it really at is weapons and attacks, along with items granting unusual special properties. They have viewed them to be both more fun and more pragmatic. They'd rather one-shot the BBEG with a greataxe than go into some protracted AC war, which they would consider pointless and boring.
They might be turtling to a significant extent.
I thought it might be a strategy based on having the mage take down the enemy but that does not work in my campaign. Because I let them have a point buy that was too high for their level (along with lots of supplement books) I'm using higher then standard EL encounters. One of the main features of a game where the DM ups the average El is compared to the parties standard level is the mages get weaker. Almost nothing really gets past Spell Resistance and high CR enemies have better spell resistance. So their mage is less effective then one would expect for his level. Every second spell fails the SR check.
Still there is a thread around here where it was asked which type of characters die in the most in your campaign and I noted that in my game the fighters die and die and die. Its almost always the fighter. So maybe the high ACs are a response to this. If I'm always killing the fighters then you start to do whatever you can to try and keep them alive if your playing one.
I've never really had a problem with high ACs in my games. In fact, most of the time it seems like AC stops mattering beyond level 12 or so.
That is definitly one of the things I have been wondering about. I do sort of see hints that this will simply start to matter less and less in a few levels. It may be that this is 'just a phase'. They can go to +3 with everything but the jump from +2 to +3 really is very dramatic while the jump from +3 to +4 is not so extreme. Also Saves are starting to seem ever more important. They may just be in a situation where their ACs are high compared to the opposition for a level or two and then their ACs will turn out to mostly be a waste of good coin that should have been spent on a +4 cloak of resistance. I guess I will see.
Sundering that shield or that armor does wonder to lower the AC on troublesome PCs.
Sundering a shield would work but with my PCs this is much less of a set back then the player that looses his cherished +3 sword of flame. Loosing a +2 shield just puts them back about 4000 gp, pocket change really at this level, and knocks of a few points of AC. Their stuff low powered and generally mundane. Thats one of the things thats confusing me - its not like they found the great exploit magic item (well they did but thats in a thread about candle's of invocation). No what their using is some of the most mundane items around. Totally unsexy stuff out of the DMG. Its the fact taht they have everything working toward the same goal (high AC) thats giving me coniptic fits.
we are plowing through city of the spider queen and our dwarven defender and human cleric (usually under the effect of righteous might) both have really high ACs. The dwarf in his defensive stance gets his AC up to about 35 and that was for a level 10 PC. The level 4-9 drow fighters and wizards have no BAB to speak of and have no way to touch the dwarf, they even have a hard time hitting the cleric. I think that their bonuses to hit fall in the range of +7 to +14.
I think that the ability to increase AC, compared to BAB, is a little skewed and might need a minor adjustment. Ridding the system of one type of AC would go a looooong way to equalising the imbalance. e.g. limiting natural armour to monsters that have thick skin might be a good idea or tossing out deflection bonuses. Either one would decrease a typical tanks AC by 10-20%.
First off, as for the Wall-Mart Rules. For one, the item ... Just how many +3 keen swords are there in your world and how many of these are up for sale ? Can you imagine the fierce competition for such a blade ?
OK, outside of the Wal Mart rules for magic items I seem to have something of a misconception here. Your talking about +3 keen sword's DMRrostarr mentions +5 Full Plate Mail and I think I've probably missed some of the items talked about on this thread. My problem is not that the players want uber magic. They want the weak stuff. I wish the rotten Players would buy +3 Keen Sword's. It'd cost them every red cent they own to have such an item.
If I said that there where massive bidding wars for the weak stuff then I'd have to face the music when it finally did come to the powerful stuff. If the wimpy stuff for their level is becoming way overpriced what does that say about the stuff that is about right for their level? Completely unattainable? If a 4,000 gp +2 Shield can't be had without selling ones soul then what does that say about the 72,000 gp sword? Epic levels only?
Since my problem is I wish my players would blow all their money on the powerful stuff I'm faced with a pretty strange version of the magic store in my campaign.
- "Sorry, no +1 swords. I do however have a back room full of Frostbrand's.
- "What's that you say? You want a +2 shield? Can't help you there but I just got in a shipment of robe's of the archmagi. I'll cut you 10% off as I'm over stocked".
- "+2 Ring of protection"? Nope, sorry, sold my last one a week ago - but could I interest you in this brand spanking new new horn of valhalla?".
If I said that there where massive bidding wars for the weak stuff then I'd have to face the music when it finally did come to the powerful stuff. If the wimpy stuff for their level is becoming way overpriced what does that say about the stuff that is about right for their level? Completely unattainable? If a 4,000 gp +2 Shield can't be had without selling ones soul then what does that say about the 72,000 gp sword? Epic levels only?
Expensive stuff need not be out of their reach. There's way less buyers for those things. If the PC's are the only ones that can afford a 72,000gp sword, but there are 500 buyers for the shop's last two +1 shields, then the price for the shields will rise, but not affect the cost of the sword at all.
|
I'm running into the same problem as Jeremy. One player in particular is extremely canny when in comes to AC and stacking bonuses on his character to great effect. At level 9, he has managed to get his AC into the upper 30s using a combination of scrolls, potions, rings, armor, feats, and Dexterity. He tends to come through most fights without a scrape because he's so good at making himself untouchable. When the bad guys do get a hit in, he looks at me like I must be cheating--he's that secure in his AC supremacy.
This is a natural progression that I've witnessed in my game, though--it's not just that character, but any PC of a veteran player who understands the value of a good Armor Class. The game's guidelines for wealth and gear value empower PCs to optimize their stats. It's unavoidable without shakng up the core systems of the game or making arbitrary decisions that place frustrating limits on the players. They worked hard to earn their gold; ruling that they can't spend it on the things they want would diminish their reward and take some of the fun out of the game.
It seems to me that the game is intended to promote a learning curve for both the players and the DM. As the PCs become harder and harder to hit, a good DM needs to dig deeper into the tactics of D&D combat to find solutions. If we just accept as fact the premise that heroic adventurers are hard to hit, it stands to reason that villains and creatures native to such a setting would find ways to meet the challenge. For example, feinting in combat to negate a target's Dexterity on the next attack. Trip attacks to make the target prone. The use of touch attacks and special abilities that ignore or remove armor. Barrage-style attacks that make use of multiple attack rolls in he hopes of getting lucky. Dispelling magic to inhibit the target's magical bonuses. Entanglement. The list goes on.
If it's natural for PCs to enhance their protections against normal attacks, it's natural for their enemies to become more sophisticated in finding ways around those protections. The game lets experienced players min-max their stats with careful planning, but it also empowers DMs to use strategy to preserve a sense of challenge. The players are free to take advantage of the rules to enhance their characters--but so are you.
There are so many buffs to attack and other bonuses to attack that hitting is not a problem for pc's; though, i have noticed that a lot of monsters in the 4 to 7 hit dice range cannot hit pcs anywhere near where they should when pc's of that level have armor classes 20-25, seems a bit unfair to the players if I send to many mobs that use touch attacks and improved grapple. At this point; gnolls being a gms best friend; come in very handy; give a gnoll a couple barbarian levels and let him rage and he can hit just about anyone. Throw in a champion and a gnoll shaman and the pc's will have real problem on their hands.
I noticed this myself at these levels. I Agree that the Gnoll is an excellent monster in this regards but go take a look at Bugbear. Same +1 level adjustment but you get a bonus +2 for natural armour and an extra +2 dex thrown in. An absolutly excellent race for the 4th-7th level crowd.