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.
I find this a little Odd. I just skimmed through Dawn of a New Age and a 41 AC provides substantial protection against roughly 1/2 the encounters. It certianly does not make anything a certianty at this level but it should help a fair bit. Certianly its not the case that having the AC was some kind of a waste. The Uber BBEGs in that adventure can hit AC 41 consistently but outside of Marlee, The Vampiric Dragon and the Worm God himself most of these encounters will be signiifcantly helped by this AC if for no other reason then the Power Attacks will have to be halted or at leasted heavily stripped down.
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)...
The percentage of 3*35%=105% is not really accurate. I'm a litte rusty on my stats but I think your in the region of about a 60% chance of the creature actually landing a blow. That said there is somewhere around a 10% chance of it landing more then one. Alxso your players are a tad below the ideal of Level +20 AC. If they could get it up even a couple more points they can reduce the chance of said monster landing a single hit to something under 50%. Thats where the high AC route starts to really pay off. You want to get yoru AC to the point where, on average, assuming the DM is not out to get you and cheating or something, you have a 50% or so of walking through any given fight completely unscratched.
|
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.
High 30's!? That is indeed a lot of AC. Would you please post the combo he uses to boost his default AC by 20 to 40 points?
Anyone else notice this at their table?Yep. Thank the expansion books such as Complete This and Compendium That.
I'll buy this but its not required. My AC escalation is pure core books. My players are buying stuff almost exclusively out of the DMG (though they have many other books that they are allowed to use). Except for the Ninja their all core clasess as well though a couple of them are monstrous races from the Monster Manual.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
According to the Binomial Theorem, if a critter attacks three times with a 35% chance to hit each time, then the liklihood of getting:
3 hits is 0.042875
2 hits is 0.238875
1 hit is 0.443625
0 hits is 0.274625
(This doesn't take into account criticals, or a clever critter deciding to Power Attack after two hits...)
High 30's!? That is indeed a lot of AC. Would you please post the combo he uses to boost his default AC by 20 to 40 points?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.
I'm not sure what the true answer is but I could make a good guess. Getting to 31 is pretty easy . +2 Mithral Full Plate (+10), +3 Dex (+3), +2 Heavy Steal Shield (+4), +2 Ring of Protection (+2), +2 Amulet of Natural Armour (+2) will do it. Throw in Dodge (+1) and Combat Expertise (+5) and you'd have AC 37.
Combat Expertise will ruin your own chances to hit however. instead one could burn up even more of ones money and raise a few of these items to +3 that would get you a few points and there are a couple of other helpful feats if your using a lot of suppliments That will allow one to get even more of a Dex bonus out of their heavy armour (heavy armour optimization and improved heavy armour optimization I think) or increase the Dodge feat bonus to +2. There are a handful of spells that will give you AC bonus' from luck enhancments. I guess I could buy it but it'd be neat to see Chris break it down.
According to the Binomial Theorem, if a critter attacks three times with a 35% chance to hit each time, then the liklihood of getting:
3 hits is 0.042875
2 hits is 0.238875
1 hit is 0.443625
0 hits is 0.274625
(This doesn't take into account criticals, or a clever critter deciding to Power Attack after two hits...)
OK - as I said - rusty on my stats. Not that far off however.
|
|
The percentage of 3*35%=105% is not really accurate. I'm a litte rusty on my stats but I think your in the region of about a 60% chance of the creature actually landing a blow...
Errr right you are! I had forgotten the formula for "alternative probability", which handles the question: what is the chance of at least one event happening out of a set of independent events. The formula for this is
P(a|b) = P(a) + P(b) - (P(a) x P(b))
for two events, with the result of this calculation repeated for additional events. So...
a = hit in round 1
b = hit in round 2
P(a|b) = .35 + .35 - (.35 *.35) = .5775 (57.75% chance of a hit in round 1 or 2)
a = hit in round 1 or 2
b = hit in round 3
P(a|b) = .5775 + .35 - (.5775 * .35) = .7254 (72.54% chance of a hit in at least one round of the first 3 rounds of combat).
Apparently I am missing something in the underlying mechanics, so I will just nod off here and go back to sleep :/
After last nights game, I have to say I'm not seeing this problem. In fact, I almost killed my party :) But we are running a huge showdown in a couple weeks, and the monk player casually mentioned his ACs were in the 60s-70s!!! I asked him to break it out for me, and it was all very simple, easily stackable stuff form the core 3. Then I asked him what his to hit was. My FTR with 22 AC would be safe. Its all a trade off. If your PCs are using high AC to make combats last longer so they can get in the hits they are missing from having spent all their money on armor and not attacks, its just another method :)
|
|
I'm not sure what the true answer is but I could make a good guess. Getting to 31 is pretty easy . +2 Mithral Full Plate (+10), +3 Dex (+3), +2 Heavy Steal Shield (+4), +2 Ring of Protection (+2), +2 Amulet of Natural Armour (+2) will do it. Throw in Dodge (+1) and Combat Expertise (+5) and you'd have AC 37.
Hmmm you know, I admit when I started participating in this thread that I was a non-believer. But it certainly does seem like things are a bit wonky. My previous games have all been low-magic homebrews so the issue never arose, but now that I am running a RAW/Dungeon-based FR game, I believe I am in for this same sort of escalation.
I am going to have to put some thought into this. Much appreciation for bringing this to my attention!
It's not like you really need the magic either.
Take a Halfling, add a base Dex of 16 for a total of 18, add a Chain Shirt, a Heavy Shield, a Light weapon, Phalanx Fighting (Complete Warrior I believe?) and Dodge and you have a base AC at first level of 10 +4 dex +4 armor +3 shield +1 dodge +1 size = 23.
It ups to 25 if you have a buddy with Phalanx Fighting standing next to you. And you're not even lowering your attack bonus yet.
The thing is usually to hit opponents in their weak spot, as said before. But yes, AC might be slightly broken at times.
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.+15 attack bonus at 10th level? Good god, my players typically had that at 15th!
Argh! My fingers betrayed me! I meant 5th level, 5th! Not 15th. I've seen a combo fighter/barbarian have +15 attack at 5th level with a scythe. However, now that I think about it, this may be an error, because for a long time my players and I were under the mistaken impression that the 1.5 x Str bonus went for attacks as well as damage. So, it was probably closer to +10 or +12. Note that my players had an uncanny ability to roll 18s, and would bump them to 20s or so by 5th level. (I suspect something wonky going on, but never actually saw anything condemning)
Interesting thread!
And I'm just going to throw this out there, too. This might be more appropriate in the Buying Magic Items thread, but the subject has been entertained here, too.
I don't see why people want to adjust the price of magic items so much, or restrict their availability to the PCs. Yes, the DMG is just guidelines (but so is the PHB; I choose to value them a bit more than as simple "guidelines"), but nevertheless, its position is that the game is balanced for the party to have X amount of magic at Y level. For some reason, many DMs seem uncomfortable with this, and try to gimmick around with rules or the game world to make it so that the party has X-3 amount of magic at Y level, which will, of course, throw off balance. If that's what you want, fine, but such a desire rarely comes out clearly in the posts of DMs running such games.
As was said in the other thread by Ghettowedge, there's a reason CR 3 is the lowest rating you'll find for incorporeal creatures- the party is expected to have a magic weapon, at least one, by that time. Likewise, high level threats assume that the party will have a variety of magical goodies at their disposal. Some DMs just seem intimidated by this, and it confuses me. I suppose because it's harder to write adventures and make challenging foes?
There is that. But I also have a 36 point buy in my game, which means they are slightly over book power anyway (as much as one ECL). I restrict magic items to keep them more apporximatley in line with book CRs. Still, they only lag by 15-20% in by level wealth, so its not like I'm dangling goodies just out of reach, you know?
OTOH, I also value innovative thinking and tactics. Magic items can stifle the creatvity of a party. Not every party, but I like to keep mine thinking. And i prefer a more primitive, non-mass production feel to my worlds. But thats just me :)
|
I've asked my player to writeup the combo he was using, as I can't remember it all offhand. If he hasn't e-mailed it to me by the end of the week, I'll scope out his character sheet when we play. He was running his own PC plus an extra character the party brought in for a tournament, and the party invested heavily in scrolls and potions in preparation for the fights.
His current PC is a rogue/soulknife, with a +1 or +2 mithral shirt to start with. He has min-maxed his Dexterity up to something like 20 before any magical Dex enhancements. (I didn't check his math, so it's possible he stacked up more Dex than the mithral shirt will allow.) He has an Amulet of Natural Armor of +2 or +3, a custom set of magic bracers (which I shouldn't have allowed) that provide a Deflection bonus instead of Armor, and an Ioun Stone that gives a +1 insight bonus to AC. I'm not sure what other things he stacked in there, but I remember that it seemed legit when he explained it at the time. Dodge bonuses were prominent, if I recall correctly. I know they had scrolls of Shield of Faith, but I don't think that stacked with his bracers. I do remember that he used a scroll of Shield (the mage spell) for a free +4 shield bonus. I don't think he used Combat Expertise, and I shudder to even ask him for fear of giving him the idea! Even so, this character was only low 30s AC, I think. But...he also stacked concealment in the form of a Blur potion on top of all that! (With the option of having my mage cast Displacement on him if needed!)
His temporary PC for the arena is a munchkiny nightmare of a thing, and that's the one that has the mid-upper 30s. It's a half-dragon outfitted with a similarly-impressive array of AC-boosting effects. I think it had a +6 natural armor bonus to start with, just from race, but I could be remembering wrong.
Yes, my players are a couple of power-gaming uber-munchkins. :)
[I'll buy this but its not required. My AC escalation is pure core books. My players are buying stuff almost exclusively out of the DMG (though they have many other books that they are allowed to use). Except for the Ninja their all core clasess as well though a couple of them are monstrous races from the Monster Manual.
You may say that expansion books have not affected your game, but if you play with the most current rule set, they have.
You know, many might interpret my assessment that by expansion books I mean new spells, feats, abilities, etc, and those people would be partially right. The "power-gamer" friend I referred to before made the comment last week that it was so easy to find different spells with AC bonuses that stack. True, but I pointed out that THATS not the problem. The problem is pacing.
By pacing I mean two things:
1) How many spells are active before initiative is dropped (persistant, contingent, extended, and permanent spells)
2) How many spells can a PC cast per round (because since these expansion books came out, with the exception of Time Stop, the number went from 1 to at least 2)
Rational: My cleric with 3.0 core rules had a difficult decision to make round 1. He has no buffs on, so does he buff, or does he attack? To totally buff the AC could take several rounds.
Today, my friends cleric attacks first round. Why? Her buffs are pre-cast, and typically she can cast multiple spells in a round thanks to immediate and swift actions.
With core rule books, one might never consider "extending" a Shield spell (see Sebastians thread involving this spell). But persisting it is a no brainer, and it only costs turn checks, which incidentaly is never used for turning at our game table anymore.
A simple answer to this complex question: attack bonus increases with level, for as high as you want to play. AC doesn't, and even with all the cash in the world you can't by better than +5 items. Even though there are more slots for AC and you can get an item-based +1 to AC much cheaper than an item-based +1 to attack bonus, there is a point where AC hits a plateau and attack bonus doesn't, because you keep leveling up and collecting your +1 every level (if you're a martial type). If your players are spending their dough on AC boosts to get a 35 AC at 10th level, they've only got about another 7 or 8 points before they can't raise it any more except with feats like improved combat expertise, and then it comes at the direct expense of offense. Right now, they are hard for certain types of opponents to hit, but in 5 levels, they'll be facing challenges that hit them multiple times per round even if their ACs are flat-out maxed. They will then learn that the best defense is a good offense. Meanwhile, the old 60 foot pit trap with ten feet of water in it should be a good reminder of the bad side of being all about heavy armor. I think using a variety of monsters and tactics that force them to diversify their magical assets a bit is a good thing. (On a side note, I generally don't spend more than 20-25% of my wealth on any single item when I'm rolling up a high-level character--PC or NPC. This generally precludes anything more than a +1 item with a special ability (which I find more valuable than an additional +1 to AC or hit most times). If my martial character's style prevents use of a shield, I might spend a bit more on armor, but not much. In my view, it's better to have a bunch of potions to deal with a variety of contingencies than to have an extra +1 or +2 to AC or to hit.)
|
|
These are the combinations my player says he was using in our first tournament battle:
Fleece (Human Rogue/Soulknife): 10 + 6 (magic mithril chain shirt 5+1) + 6 (dex of 4 + 2 for cat's grace) + 3 (deflection bracers) + 4 (shield scroll) + 1 (natural armor amulet) + 1 (ioun stone) = 31
Dyvim (Half Dragon Monk): 10 + 4 (bracers) + 7 (dex 4 + 3 cat's grace) + 4 (natural armor) +4 (wisdom) + 4 (shield scroll) = 33
Now, I remember the scores being about 3-4 points higher on each character, but my memory has never been known for its excellence. It's possible that my mind exaggerated the numbers in my recollection, so I'll give the player the benefit of the doubt.
I'm also not sure why Cats Grace is giving different values to each character. I wonder if he was using 3.0 rules where you roll for the bonus...
However, it's easy to see where those scores could be improved: I really thought the rogue had a +3 amulet of Nat. Armor; if he did, that would put him at 33. If the half-dragon had been using the ioun stone, that would make him 34. The Dodge feat would raise either one another point vs. one combatant, and Combat Expertise could then be added to either character. Without looking up the BABs on either character, I'll assume that either one at level 9 could max out Combat Expertise at 5 points, putting the half-dragon at AC 40 and the rogue at AC 37. And they could go even higher with luck bonuses, morale bonuses, or other effects.
Slap displacement on them to introduce miss chances, and they become untouchable in most conventional ways to creatures of the same level.
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.
Exactly. Isn't that what Jeremy is getting at? That if the RAW assume you can buy magic items then smart players are able to use their wealth by level to make their AC disproportionately powerful compared with BAB's? Somehow I don't think "if you don't like it house-rule it" is the answer he was looking for.
If Jeremy's right then something in the standard, widely played rules-as-written leads to a gross unbalancing of the combat mechanics. If that's the case then as much as I hate to come out and say it, that's poor game design. D&D has a lot of freedom in terms of the DM's ability to tailor the game, but really the fundamental balance of the combat system is not the sort of thing that should need house rules to work.
I always took the magic item prices not as price tags, but as indicators of worth for what sort of stuff NPCs would have collected and found over their careers. I don't allow anything but basic potions to be bought, but I know that's only because I'm stuck in the 2E mindset. It's not how most people play nowadays and not how I would have read it if 3E had been my first experience with D&D. I would have been walking into Glowing Swords-R-Us with everyone else the way the rules suggest you can.
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.
Well I'm making a case for both conditions but I'm far more concerned with rising PC and NPC ACs then with the rising monster ACs. Generally speaking monster ACs are usually nothing to really freak out about. There is the odd monster with an AC that is really, really, high but they are the exception and not the rule and occasionally its fun to pit the players against an opponent with a crazy AC just to see how they overcome the challenge.
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.
The problem with a system that does not scale is that it really weakens the martial classes later in the campaign. In some sense I think the increasing number of attacks that the martial classes start to acquire at high levels helps keep them stay at least in the same ball park to the spell users who gain access to an ever larger arsenal of ever more potent spells. If we decide that the fighter is essentially static in terms of power from 10th level on (he might gain a better to hit but it will always be countered by an increased AC of at least as high as his increase to hit) then martial classes effectiveness really starts dropping dramatically.
If he is still only going to hit one time in four tries with his primary attack no matter how many attacks he actually has he is severely limited in how much damage he can do. The damage he can dish out is already becoming increasingly insignificant as the levels increase. If he can do an average of 30 points in a hit at 12th that is not all that bad but if he's done no more then make that an average of 1 hit for 40 points by 18th he's ceased to be much of a factor. By this point the monsters all have many hundreds of hit points. If he only hits an average of once every four rounds and then only does a mere 40 hit points of damage to a creature with 400 hit points he'll take 40 rounds to bring down a major foe. Basically speaking he might as well not even be there he is just so ineffective when one considers that the mages are starting to deal 100+ hps a round or are forcing enemies to make saves or be destroyed from 15th level on.
Furthermore many good martial feats such as power attack are really far weaker if the average level appropriate enemy is nearly impossible for the martial class to hit. Obviously it is a mistake to invest in such feats. It may be that the BBEG should be somewhat harder to hit at later levels but harder should be relative to the fact that the BBEG has hit points to spare.
There is another side effect of making martial classes really weak at high levels. Your encouraging the fighters to run around sundering and grappling as the only way they can effectively participate. One big weak point of making trying to hit a fault option for your martial players is that you encourage the players to delve into some of the more cumbersome rules that are partly survivable more because they don't come up to often then because they are actually fun to play with.
If the fighter does nothing but attempt the sunder the BBEGs items every single round that is going to grow old really fast. Normally sundering is not a great option because the BBEG will just use a different ability and the sunder does not do a huge amount to the BBEGs potential but if the fighter can't really do much to the BBEGs potential anyway then sundering everything in sight becomes the best alternative option.
I gotta say I've never seen a game where the secondary attacks weren't useful, no matter the AC. Even if its just to roll for additional crits, those attacks still matter, IMO. But it also depends ont he level you are playing at. 1-8th, martial classes rule, 8-16th is a tossup, 17-20, its all about the MUs. Thats the way the game scales. Now the martial classes each have a fluff item appended to them to make them scale better- Leadership. So what if the wizard can warp time and space a limite dnumber of times a day. I have an army, and you will die eventually :)
The percentage of 3*35%=105% is not really accurate. I'm a litte rusty on my stats but I think your in the region of about a 60% chance of the creature actually landing a blow...Errr right you are! I had forgotten the formula for "alternative probability", which handles the question: what is the chance of at least one event happening out of a set of independent events. The formula for this is
P(a|b) = P(a) + P(b) - (P(a) x P(b))
for two events, with the result of this calculation repeated for additional events. So...a = hit in round 1
b = hit in round 2P(a|b) = .35 + .35 - (.35 *.35) = .5775 (57.75% chance of a hit in round 1 or 2)
a = hit in round 1 or 2
b = hit in round 3P(a|b) = .5775 + .35 - (.5775 * .35) = .7254 (72.54% chance of a hit in at least one round of the first 3 rounds of combat).
Apparently I am missing something in the underlying mechanics, so I will just nod off here and go back to sleep :/
You know your numbers are within a mouses whisker of dead on right? Certianly good enough for our purposes.
A simple answer to this complex question: attack bonus increases with level, for as high as you want to play. AC doesn't, and even with all the cash in the world you can't by better than +5 items. Even though there are more slots for AC and you can get an item-based +1 to AC much cheaper than an item-based +1 to attack bonus, there is a point where AC hits a plateau and attack bonus doesn't, because you keep leveling up and collecting your +1 every level (if you're a martial type).
I disagree. Attack Bonus for anything vaguely resembling reasonable tops out as well. In fact lets do a quick calculation.
20th Level Fighter +20 BAB, +5 Weapon, + Strength Bonus of (18 strength to start+ 5 stat increases to strength (one every 4 levels)+ +5 Manual of Gainful Exercise + +6 Belt of Giant Strengh = 18+16 = 34 Strength)+12 = +37 to hit from the greatest of warriors, Probably +40 with feats.
Thats pretty sweat but its kind of hard to pull off consdering that a character can fairly reasonably have +31 to AC at 10th and still have a a good 3rd of his wealth by level to spend.
Thats pretty sweat but its kind of hard to pull off consdering that a character can fairly reasonably have +31 to AC at 10th and still have a a good 3rd of his wealth by level to spend.
I can't see how that's possible, but that's probably because I'm only considering core. Maybe this discussion is a great example of why DM judgment is necessary where AC is concerned.
I can only add a little to the discussion, but I can say it is fairly easy to spike your AC - given enough funds, and time.
Admittedly, this is from memory, and worse - 3.0 rules...
But we had a party member who had a ridiculous AC of 60 some odd at around 20th level. And if he wanted to reduce his attack chance, he could push it above 70....
But it was overshadowed... Believe it or not, it hardly ever mattered... But that is a story for a thread that points out how the 3.0 spell system really needed the fixes 3.5 put in.
But it did bring up the issue of tactics.
Even with a 70+ AC, that character was extremely vulnerable to grapples.
A simple answer to this complex question: attack bonus increases with level, for as high as you want to play. AC doesn't, and even with all the cash in the world you can't by better than +5 items. Even though there are more slots for AC and you can get an item-based +1 to AC much cheaper than an item-based +1 to attack bonus, there is a point where AC hits a plateau and attack bonus doesn't, because you keep leveling up and collecting your +1 every level (if you're a martial type).I disagree. Attack Bonus for anything vaguely resembling reasonable tops out as well. In fact lets do a quick calculation.
20th Level Fighter +20 BAB, +5 Weapon, + Strength Bonus of (18 strength to start+ 5 stat increases to strength (one every 4 levels)+ +5 Manual of Gainful Exercise + +6 Belt of Giant Strengh = 18+16 = 34 Strength)+12 = +37 to hit from the greatest of warriors, Probably +40 with feats.
Thats pretty sweat but its kind of hard to pull off consdering that a character can fairly reasonably have +31 to AC at 10th and still have a a good 3rd of his wealth by level to spend.
Again, you're forgetting spells and magic, and the bonuses that can add. Assuming a PC rather than an NPC, a 20th level fighter will have those types of bonuses floating around on him. That can probably add another +10, though I don't care to pour over the books right now to find out what exact combo is needed for that. So, let's assume a +47 attack bonus.
Now, there have been claims about ACs in the 60s and 70s on this thread, but the only ones proven with build writeups have been in the 30s, some touching on 40. Valegrim had a thread about high ACs months ago, in which I believe someone got 51 AC, assuming no wealth guidelines, and even that was questionable because of some of the stacking the guy used.
+47 attack bonus vs. 51 AC is pretty good. In fact, let's assume that +47 attack bonus is considered "normal" for a 20th level fighter (rage could make it even higher, actually). The "typical" AC this guy should face, to provide a challenge, would be 57, granting a 50% hit rate. If the ACs spiked into the low 60s, that would just mean the foe was slightly harder to hit on average, and thus be aimed at being a challenge for warrior types.
I don't see an issue, since I can't really think of anything that has 50 AC in the MM, or any NPC I've ever seen with that much AC. Just because you're party has 31 AC at 10th level doesn't mean that they will be able to keep boosting it in a linear fashion from here on out. It does plataeu eventually. Even before then, the marginal benefit to the party at that point may well not be worth the marginal cost of pushing it any higher. This will be particularly true if you diversify their combats. If they continue the trend even in the face of this, then it's just their own choice and they'll have to live and die by it, and you really don't have to concern yourself with the issue anymore.
Oh, and my mention of greater magic weapon previously- an oil of this spell at it's +5 version is rediculously cheap for the bonus it provides (and the party can't get their greedy little hands on it!). If you have a +2 sword and put that oil on it, it becomes +5 for the duration. The spell doesn't simply stop working because the target is already magical. Therefore, you can squeeze another +3 bonus on the weapon. Now, what happens to special abilities in such a case, I'm not sure.
Now, there have been claims about ACs in the 60s and 70s on this thread, but the only ones proven with build writeups have been in the 30s, some touching on 40. Valegrim had a thread about high ACs months ago, in which I believe someone got 51 AC, assuming no wealth guidelines, and even that was questionable because of some of the stacking the guy used.
I'll take this as an indirect challenge to me to "put up, or shut up."
So I broke out my 3.5 DMG and PHB, and started taking notes. I did have to touch upon Complete Adventurer for one of my examples... But I am fairly certain I could come up with a Core example if need be.
Keep in mind, this is based on the idea that if the GM is fairly lax about magic item availability, that the same holds true for other things - like attributes.
20th level character AC bonuses:
Base - 10 points
Attribute - +22 points (+12 from Dexterity [18 base, +2 racial {Halfling or other}, +5 inherent {Tome / Manual}, +6 Enhancement, +3 level bumps = 34 Dex) (+10 from Wisdom {1st level Monk, or Monk's Belt} [18 base, +5 inherent {Tome / Manual}, +6 Enhancement, +1 level bumps = 30 Wis) (1 level bump not assigned)
Competence - +5 (19th level Scout, for example)
Deflection - +5 (Ring of Protection +5)
Enhancement - +15 (+5 to armor, +5 to natural armor, +5 to shield)
Other - +10 (Fighting with 2 Defending Weapons)
And that gets me to a 67 AC without even adding in any actual Armor, Shield, or Natural Armor values... And I haven't even touched on Alchemical, Circumstance, Dodge, Insight, Luck, Moral, or Profane / Sacred (Assuming that the GM wouldn't allow both at the same time) bonuses yet.
Given enough Gold flow, and unrestricted access to items, it is quite possible to get an insane AC by 20th level.
|
|
Note that if you are wearing armor, the monk's belt does precisely nothing, so the Armor bonus, at least, seems suspect. You've spent 32 points on raising both DEX and WIS to 18 at character creation, and you're taking a double bonus from the same source (two Defending weapons). And how much money did this character spend for this AC?
Even without the problems with the build, what, exactly, does this character do besides raise his AC? How can he usefully contribute in a 20th level group?
These are, frankly, the biggest problems with the more egregious sort of character optimization exercises. They don't reflect anything that would arise in actual play and they rely on a DM with limited reading ability, no spine, and no common sense.
Other than that, bravo.
|
|
You know your numbers are within a mouses whisker of dead on right? Certianly good enough for our purposes.P(a|b) = .5775 + .35 - (.5775 * .35) = .7254 (72.54% chance of a hit in at least one round of the first 3 rounds of combat).
Apparently I am missing something in the underlying mechanics, so I will just nod off here and go back to sleep :/
Yes, I absolutely agree with you. I am sorry I wasn't clear. I had thought your reasoning initially flawed, but my calculations proved you to be very much in the right. This plus the other points here of how AC can be raised per RAW have reversed my opinion on this matter and I am now firmly in the "hmm this seems wrong" camp.
In fact, your raising of this issue and the thought process I went through regarding it has warned me that I need to watch how I handle my weekly game to be certain that things do not get far out of hand AC-wise. I wish there were a better answer out there, but for now DM fiat may have to rear its ugly head.
Note that if you are wearing armor, the monk's belt does precisely nothing, so the Armor bonus, at least, seems suspect.
Fair enough. Even if I give you that you can't have +5 Bracers of Armor +8 (which I, personally, believe you can - or should be able too), that takes away 5 points and adds 8, increasing the AC total to 70 without even scouring extra books for obscure published material.
You've spent 32 points on raising both DEX and WIS to 18 at character creation,
Ah... But you are assuming point build, and not ridiculous rolling methods
and you're taking a double bonus from the same source (two Defending weapons).
Not quite, the description of Defender states that its bonus stacks with all others, strongly suggesting that it can even stack with itself.. Munchkining? Sure. But quite within the rules.
And how much money did this character spend for this AC?
I never claimed it was cheap, nor appropriate. Saern, thinly veiled a challange to me to "prove" my claimed AC values. There were no limitations on how. I even stated that this was based on tremendous money expenditure.
Even without the problems with the build, what, exactly, does this character do besides raise his AC? How can he usefully contribute in a 20th level group?
Well, to be fair, this was based on a 3.0 group where only 2 characters contributed to the group. The typical encounter went:
Round 1
Sorceress takes out all supporting enemies (3.0 Time Stop + 3.0 Haste + three to nine overlapping area of effect damaging spells)
Cleric (me) takes out BBEG (3.0 Harm + sacrificial dagger {+5 Dagger of Speed})
Round 2
Barbarian cries because we didn't leave him anything to fight again.
Ridiculous AC guy "Good. Again I didn't even get dirty."
They don't reflect anything that would arise in actual play and they rely on a DM with limited reading ability, no spine, and no common sense.
No, there you are transferring your values of game experience onto everyone else.
In the above game, it was a "fun, free-for-all, hack n' slash game." The GM even challenged us to break the game as best we could.
And we did. And had a blast doing so.
Which was good, because when 3.5 came out shortly afterwards, we knew exactly why the spells and abilities were changed the way they were.
But more to the point, just because you believe that it doesn't make sense to have Flaming, and Frost on the same weapon - doesn't mean everyone has to agree with you. It is magic after all.
|
|
Fair enough. Even if I give you that you can't have +5 Bracers of Armor +8 (which I, personally, believe you can - or should be able too), that takes away 5 points and adds 8, increasing the AC total to 70 without even scouring extra books for obscure published material.
Let's just say that I disagree that "you can" and certainly disagree with "you should".
Ah... But you are assuming point build, and not ridiculous rolling methods
Then why stop with 18 base? Sure, that's the assumption, but so is 25 point purchase.
Not quite, the description of Defender states that its bonus stacks with all others, strongly suggesting that it can even stack with itself.. Munchkining? Sure. But quite within the rules.
I disagree that it "strongly suggests" any such thing. But this has been repeatedly argued on the WotC boards, so I'll leave any further discussion there.
I never claimed it was cheap, nor appropriate. Saern, thinly veiled a challange to me to "prove" my claimed AC values. There were no limitations on how. I even stated that this was based on tremendous money expenditure.
Character wealth per level guidelines are default D&D. They can, of course, be changed. So can any other restriction in the rules. Do I need to demonstrate how the game can be broken by arbitrarily removing restrictions, or can we just take that as given?
Well, to be fair, this was based on a 3.0 group where only 2 characters contributed to the group.
So, basically, the short answer is "nothing". So how does this academic exercise contribute to a discussion of balance (which is where we began, after all)?
No, there you are transferring your values of game experience onto everyone else.
In the above game, it was a "fun, free-for-all, hack n' slash game." The GM even challenged us to break the game as best we could.
And we did. And had a blast doing so.
No, I was basing this on a default game of D&D, which is (and should be, absent explicit statements to the contrary) the default basis for discussions of balance.
But more to the point, just because you believe that it doesn't make sense to have Flaming, and Frost on the same weapon - doesn't mean everyone has to agree with you. It is magic after all.
Ah yes, the "it's magic, it can do anything" defense. Perhaps I do need to demonstrate how arbitrary changes to defaults can break the balance of the game. You know, if you use a d100 instead of a d20 for your combat rolls, much of this is completely unimportant. The use of the d20 is just an arbitrary game mechanic that can easily be changed.
Speaking of the arbitrary d20 game mechanic, I'm not too fond of the use of the d20. I don't like that a roll of 20 is just as likely as a roll of 10. I like the bell-curve distribution of probability associated with either multiple d10's or multiple d6's.
A d20 minimizes the impact of skills and abilities.
But thats just my preference.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I agree with Doug and don't have much else to add. It's pretty easy to artifically inflate any state in the game, but the core of the question was how a real character built using the real rules as applied by a real DM would achieve a 60-70 AC. I'm not saying it can't be done, but the sacrifices that are made and assumptions that are required make it a long shot.
Wow, an AC of 35 at 10th level? How good are their weapons, or are they just turtling? my fighter had an AC of 24 up to 17th level, but he could kill almost anything before it did more than half his HP damage. (spirited charge was a great help here.) The trick is to play the monsters smart: have armored ones hit the mages while mages hammer the fighters.
I wasn't issuing any form of challenge. The example I cited was the only one clearly demonstrated thus far. Virtually everyone else had not done this and included qualifiers to the effect of "I could be forgetting something or not remembering this correctly." I decided to base my argument on something that had been laid out in concrete fashion, rather than something that may or may not have held up. There was no challenge to prove one's claims intended.
Additionally, I agree with Doug.
So, basically, the short answer is "nothing". So how does this academic exercise contribute to a discussion of balance (which is where we began, after all)?
Let me see if I can't end this cat and mouse game.
Please go back to my original post in this thread... No, wait. I'll save you the trouble.
I can only add a little to the discussion, but I can say it is fairly easy to spike your AC - given enough funds, and time.
Admittedly, this is from memory, and worse - 3.0 rules...
But we had a party member who had a ridiculous AC of 60 some odd at around 20th level. And if he wanted to reduce his attack chance, he could push it above 70....
But it was overshadowed... Believe it or not, it hardly ever mattered... But that is a story for a thread that points out how the 3.0 spell system really needed the fixes 3.5 put in.
But it did bring up the issue of tactics.
Even with a 70+ AC, that character was extremely vulnerable to grapples.
Now, I figured this community didn't need to have it spelled out, but I was wrong. I tend to forget that I need to write for the least common denominator on the internet.
But let me translate.
"I can only add a little to the discussion,"
What I am about to write has very little to do with the current discussion.
"but I can say it is fairly easy to spike your AC - given enough funds, and time."
If allowed to, a player can easily increase their AC much faster than their attack bonus. (I mean really, do a "price is no object" build for attack, and see how sad it stacks up to a similar build for AC.)
"Yada. Yada. Yada."
Just some background to give a taste of where my upcoming point is comming from.
"But it did bring up the issue of tactics.
Even with a 70+ AC, that character was extremely vulnerable to grapples."
Ahah! Eureka! The point.
Tactics can, and often do, balance out any perceived problem.
Anything after that was from a misunderstanding I had with Saern's post, which I took as a question of how it happened, rather than what that post was meant for. (Which I still don't fathom, but is very irrelevant at this point.)
As far as balance, Jeremy Mac Donald asked if any one else noted the trend of AC boosting being easier than Attack boosting. And I seemed to stay on that topic.
And as long as you want to wave the "default D&D" stick around, let me retort with this:
3e in general, and 3.5 more specifically, shifted the focus to character (and therefor party) survival. It is quite intentional that Defense increases are more prolific, cheaper, and easier to acquire.
So then, there must not be any balance issues to discuss - right?
|
|
Wow, an AC of 35 at 10th level? How good are their weapons, or are they just turtling? my fighter had an AC of 24 up to 17th level, but he could kill almost anything before it did more than half his HP damage. (spirited charge was a great help here.) The trick is to play the monsters smart: have armored ones hit the mages while mages hammer the fighters.
The high-AC characters in my game are not hampered at all offensively by their AC. Under the right circumstances, they can both lay out the damage pretty thickly.
The Rogue/Soulknife has, essentially, a free magic (psionic) weapon that he can conjure at will. It's not that great damage-wise on its own, but he's very good at creating situations where he can apply his rogue sneak attack bonus damage, and he combines it with psionic feats that boost it even more when he expends his psionic focus. I don't know his exact combination offhand, but I myself have made an 8th level soulknife that can do the following damage:
1d10 +11 +1d4 + 2d6 + 2d8
(bastard sword mind blade) + (enhancement bonuses and Str+1/2 for wielding two-handed) + (psychokinetic weapon quality) + (psionic weapon feat) + (psychic strike class ability)
The player in question doesn't have all of those, but he adds a couple more d6s of sneak attack damage from his rogue levels.
The half-dragon monk is even sicker...with two claws and a bite attack enhanced by his monk abilities and augmented by the high Ability Score adjustments from his race, plus a breath weapon attack, he was able to consistantly dish out a good chunk of punishment in the tournament battle.
A mixture of unresponsive and ad hominem arguments.I'll simply say that I see no reason to expand on my existing responses.
That is because they have no bearing on the discussion at hand, that you can't even see anyway.
Thanks for playing, enjoy the the home game on your way out.
Thats pretty sweat but its kind of hard to pull off consdering that a character can fairly reasonably have +31 to AC at 10th and still have a a good 3rd of his wealth by level to spend.I can't see how that's possible, but that's probably because I'm only considering core. Maybe this discussion is a great example of why DM judgment is necessary where AC is concerned.
Well I'm only descussing core myself but your right and I'm wrong in the sense that you won't have a 1/3rd of your cash left to spend. At least not if you start with Mithral +2 Full Plate. Its probably possible to get to AC 31 other ways and a little cheaper but if your going for an AC build with a fighter your almost certianly going to have to pick up Mithral +2 Full Plate at some point. Anyway I'll break the costs down.
mithral +2 full plate = 9000 gp (mithral heavy armour)+4000 gp (+2 armour enhancment bonus) + 1500 gp (full plate) = 14500 gp / AC +13 (+10 armour bonus, +3 dex bonus (you must have at least 16 dex to make use of all this).
+2 heavy steel shield = 4170 gp / AC +4 shield bonus
+2 ring of protection = 8000 gp / AC +2 enhancment to deflection
+2 amulet of natural armour = 8000 gp / AC +2 enhancment to natural armour
A 10th level character has 49,000 gp
Cost = 34,170 gp AC = 10+21 for 31 total.
You have 14,830 gp left to spend. Might I suggest a +2 weapon (~8000 gp) and a +2 cloak of resistance (4000 gp), leaving you just shy of 3000 gp, I suggest you buy maybe a poition or two and give the balance to the rest of the party, particularly the cleric, as your share of party owned goods like the many wnads of Cure Light Wounds a party of this level has and the scroll of knock that everyone bought for the wizard to open that door "we just know has treasure".
Again, you're forgetting spells and magic, and the bonuses that can add. Assuming a PC rather than an NPC, a 20th level fighter will have those types of bonuses floating around on him. That can probably add another +10, though I don't care to pour over the books right now to find out what exact combo is needed for that. So, let's assume a +47 attack bonus.
OK I got side tracked with that whole little creation of the ultimate fighter. Its really not germane to my point anyway. That said a can't resist making a quick jump into the idea of +10 more bonus for this high level guy. First off the build was partly an exercise in pointing out the absurdity of the build. The stuff he owns is obscenely expensive. We are really looking at stuff one gets when the wealth by level table shoots into the stratosphere from about 16th level on. Before that cost really is a factor. So this guy does not evolve, he is instead essentially a character construct created at very high level to start with.
However even in these terms I doubt that he'll have much in the way of bonus to attack from magic. First off the easy enhancements to attack bonus are mostly tapped. You can't add to his strnegth (except to enlarge him) or the magic of his weapons. Your looking for more obscure luck and moral bonus to attack. Its possible to find them but I doubt its easy to find +10 worth of them. Finally in actual play the Cleric and Wizard have better things to do during their combat rounds then cast these sorts of buffs most of the time. Especially on this crazy guy whose Attack Bonus approaches some kind of theoretical maximum for his level.
...Now, there have been claims about ACs in the 60s and 70s on this thread, but the only ones proven with build writeups have been in the 30s, some touching on 40. Valegrim had a thread about high ACs months ago, in which I believe someone got 51 AC, assuming no wealth guidelines, and even that was questionable because of some of the stacking the guy used.
+47 attack bonus vs. 51 AC is pretty good. In fact, let's assume that +47 attack bonus is considered "normal" for a 20th level fighter (rage...
OK, as I mentioned in my last post, really looking at the super 20th level guy is who can get great Attack Bonus' is really beside the point. Even if it happens to be true that from some high level on Attack Bonus' will catch up with AC bonus' because cost is no longer a consideration, well so what.
My point is that from about 2nd level to some high level between 13th and 20th armour class seems to far outstrip Attack Bonus. It's little consolation that this will all work itself out at 16th level because the vast majority of game play occurs between 2nd and 15th levels. Even if it eventually fixes itself at 16th that does not make this much less of a problem.
Essentially the root of the problem is that magic armour is far cheaper then magic weapons and that there are many ways to increase ones AC with magic items and only a comparatively few ways to increase ones Attack Bonus. Its far cheaper to buy 4 +2 magic items then it is to buy 2 +4 magic items and that is basically what this comes down to.
I can buy +2 armour, a +2 shield, +2 ring of protection and a +2 amulet of natural armour for far less then I can buy anything comparable in magic to increase my attack bonus. The basic package I outline two posts (of mine) above costs roughly the same as a +3 weapon and a +4 belt of giant strength which in total gives me a choice of +5 to attack bonus vs. +11 to AC. Furthermore in the near term future I'd have to spend big bucks to make that a +6 Belt of Giant Strength or a +4 weapon. For the next little while I'm far better off, price wise, making the armour and shield +3 and increasing the amulet and ring to +3. Basically speaking a bonus to AC costs far less then a bonus to a weapon or a bonus to a primary stat which are some of the more expensive options around. That's not to say that the weapon won't go to +3 sometime around this period but that I'll upgrade that ring and amulet to +3 probably before I make the weapon +4. That is just more cost effective, but it also means that ACs remain mighty high compared to attack bonus.
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 don't know much about the City of the Spider Queen but I believe that it is based on the old Descent to the Depths of the Earth Modules, which I do know (though memory is kind of foggy - been a long time).
In any case you've kind of hit on when the AC bonus is at its optimum. I've made arguments that it is very good in almost any kind of D&D environment but it reaches its peak against this sort of opposition. If the enemies consist of mooks or Grade A+ mooks then the AC issue goes completely out of whack. No kind of mook can hit and they don't have much in the way of AC bypassing abilities - that is why they are mooks. You can call them Drow Elves or leveled bugbears or whatever but in the end a mook is a mook and against big time ACs they simply can't hit**.
This becomes more of a problem when you consider that mooks are the general answer to threads that complain that the BBEGs are going down to easily by player character mobs. If the player characters are essentially immune to the mook mobs they can more or less ignore them and quickly move on to the BBEG. As an example I had a BBEG behind a mob of mooks at one point and was a little surprised when two of the martial type players simply walked through the mooks to get straight to the BBEG. Sure the mooks got AoOs but so what - its not like they would hit or anything. That is not to say that the mooks are utterly useless. Some player power has to be kept back to protect the wizard and such - its just that mooks are far less effective. The BBEG is usually still in a world of hurt. The players have sacrificed a little offensive power for a lot of AC but their likely still pretty good if they can gang up on a BBEG.
Anyway good luck with your adventure - remember to include lots of really big spiders. Those will hit even if the Dark Elves are a joke.
**Since I've been here I'll toss out one of the tricks I came up with. Buy +3 arrows (they come in batches of 50) and then divvy them up among the whole group of mooks - so everyone has a few +3 arrows. That will up their chance to hit without giving your PCs much in the way of big ticket magic items when all is said and done and the monsters are defeated.
Speaking of the arbitrary d20 game mechanic, I'm not too fond of the use of the d20. I don't like that a roll of 20 is just as likely as a roll of 10. I like the bell-curve distribution of probability associated with either multiple d10's or multiple d6's.
A d20 minimizes the impact of skills and abilities.
But thats just my preference.
I was talking with a friend who is starting up a D&D game after a fairly lengthy hiatus. His players apparently convinced him to use 3d6 instead of a d20. I pointed out to him that if 70% of his rolls fell within a bell curve of something like 8-15 he was going to have a hell of a time hitting his players. I mean its tough enough when you need to roll an 18+ on a d20 to hit but when you can only hit on an 18 on 3d6 – that is a 1 in 216 chance to hit.
Any way unless you do something radical to make AC much less of a factor I would stay well away from bell curved attack roll methods. That 5% chance to roll a natural 20 is surprisingly often the only thing a monster has got.
Even with a 70+ AC, that character was extremely vulnerable to grapples."
It'll cost a whopping 40 grand but if I'm a player moving into the higher levels I'm going to start looking to replace my ring of feather falling (cheap at 2200 gp) with the sheer awsomeness that is the ring of freedom of movement.
The half-dragon monk is even sicker...with two claws and a bite attack enhanced by his monk abilities and augmented by the high Ability Score adjustments from his race, plus a breath weapon attack, he was able to consistantly dish out a good chunk of punishment in the tournament battle.
Can you stack natural attacks on to unarmed attacks?
3 words for high-level NPCs wanting to get around the ridiculous armor bonus (well, a good chunk of it anyway):
Brilliant energy weapons.
OK, I'm done.
*crawls back into hole*
It'll cost a whopping 40 grand but if I'm a player moving into the higher levels I'm going to start looking to replace my ring of feather falling (cheap at 2200 gp) with the sheer awsomeness that is the ring of freedom of movement.
Even with a 70+ AC, that character was extremely vulnerable to grapples."
Wow...
I never considered a Ring of Freedom of Movement (Or the Travel Domain ability for a no cost alternative) as terribly useful until just now.
Grapple isn't very high up on the action choice of my group, and the only time it was really needed (my example game), it never really had a chance to matter...
Can you stack natural attacks on to unarmed attacks?
The half-dragon monk is even sicker...with two claws and a bite attack enhanced by his monk abilities and augmented by the high Ability Score adjustments from his race, plus a breath weapon attack, he was able to consistantly dish out a good chunk of punishment in the tournament battle.
My understanding is no, but I am am guessing Christopher West wasn't suggesting you could. I read that as "Two claws and a bite, plus monk abilities (evasion, good saves, non item armor increase, etc.), plus a +8 is it? to Strength... etc.
3 words for high-level NPCs wanting to get around the ridiculous armor bonus (well, a good chunk of it anyway):
Brilliant energy weapons.
OK, I'm done.
*crawls back into hole*
Hmmm.... Brilliant Energy weapons only ignore Armor (plus Enhancement bonuses on Armor) bonuses... And are useless against non living opponents... (I never found much use for them myself because of this limitation.) I can see an argument being made that they also bypass Shield bonuses and the Enhancement bonuses that go with it.... (I never thought up to this point. Couldn't get past the lack of use against Undead and Constructs.) Potentially negating up to 22 points of AC...
I can see that as a costly, and risky, tactic.
EDIT:: There is a chance that this could backfire. While the description states that Brilliant Energy Weapons ignore Armor bonuses, it continues to state that this is because it passes through non living matter. Pay attention to how that would interact with Bracers of Armor for example. While they provide an Armor bonus, it is from essentially a force effect. Lots of room for interpretation there. So it revolves around how the armor bonus is gained, and the local groups thoughts on if it can be bypassed.
Thanks for playing, enjoy the the home game on your way out.For future reference, I recommend http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html
You should find it useful.
Probably not.
There was no debate. But like I said, you can't even take the time to pull your head out of your ass long enough to wipe the shit from your eyes to read what I am writing.
Perhaps if you weren't trying to pick a internet argument with me, your reading comprehension might rise above a third grader.
But please, don't take my word for it. Maybe one of the clever people here can explain it to you in words you can grasp.
I will no longer waste my time with it.