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*
But their a +4 enhancment bonus. At a minimium thats a +5 weapon. Even at high level something that powerful can't be given out like candy - their worth 50,000 gp. Thats a big chunk of the total treasure even high level characters are going to get. I mean its a great way to arm the BBEGs in the last few fights of the campaign but I doubt this is something a DM can use more then a few in a campaign and its all in the last 3 levels.
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...
The fact that you can win a grapple check from some one trying to grapple you is just the tip of the iceberg for this great ability. It does so much more then that for a high level martial character. All those huge monster that want to grab you and swallow you or throw you or carry you off for example can't - those involve grapple checks.
Enemies of this level are often not trying to take the martial player out of the fight by battering through their AC or eliminating their hps. Their martial classes - they have massive ACs and hps to spare. No the enemy wants to just take you out of the fight for a few rounds so that they can deal with your compatriots. Freedom of movement eliminates a very large number of ways that one can slow up the fighter. It won't protect you against the large number of very good mind affecting powers at your enemies disposal but it eliminates almost everything from some other source so now you just need to concentrate on getting your will saves up or finding an item that makes you immune to mind affecting effects.
Very much worthwhile IMO - though you might be able to get around buying that 40 grand ring if you can convince one of the spell lobbers to cast it on you before going into dangerous locals. It lasts 10 minutes a level, so 2 hours from a 12th level spell lobber - that should be enough so that your covered for the adventure. I consider it something of a standard requirement – like hero's feast and deathward at the higher levels of play. You just should not leave home without it.
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 s#*# 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.
I find you to be the one acting like a troll. That type of commentary isn't welcome on this site.
I find you to be the one acting like a troll. That type of commentary isn't welcome on this site.
Very well.
Let us put this to the test.
Someone, anyone, point out exactly where I initiated a debate with Doug Sundseth over the default D&D rules. And please make sure to include context to verify my intention to debate default D&D rules.
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 :)
Going strictly by the core rules:
Halfling Monk 20 (32 Point Buy)
20 Str (14 buy -2 halfling +2 increases +6 belt)
26 Dex (14 buy +2 halfling +2 increases +2 inherent +6 gloves)
14 Con (14 buy)
14 Int (14 buy)
24 Wis (15 buy +1 increase +2 inherent +6 headband)
8 Cha (8 buy)
AC 49 normal (10 +1 size +8 armor/bracers +5 natural/amulet +5 deflection/ring +1 insight/ioun stone +8 Dex +7 Wis +4 monk), 66 max (add +1 haste +10 defending kamas +5 Combat Expertise +1 Dodge)
Attack (Flurry): +30/+30/+30/+25/+20 normal (+15 BAB +1 size +8 Weapon Finesse +1 Weapon Focus +5 magic), +21/+21/+21/+21/+16/+11 defending (add +1 haste -5 defending -5 Combat Expertise)
Gear: +5 defending ki focus alchemical silver kama (98,322gp), +5 defending ki focus cold iron kama (100,304gp), ring of freedom of movement (40,000gp), ring of protection +5 (50,000gp), amulet of natural armor +5 (50,000gp), belt of giant strength +6 (36,000gp), boots of speed (12,000gp), bracers of armor +8 (64,000gp), gloves of dexterity +6 (36,000gp), headband of wisdom +6 (36,000gp), ioun stone (dusty rose prism) (5,000gp), manual of quickness of action +2 (55,000gp), tome of understanding +2 (55,000gp), 122,374gp of other magical and non-magical items
How was the player getting in the 70s?
How was the player getting in the 70s?
Well I'm not ender but you have done most of the work here to make it at least technically possible. Fighting with the weapons defencive properties you indicate that the AC is 66. So to get into the 70's one just needs to get 4 points.
Drop both the Int and Con to 10 freeing up enough points to make Dex 18 in the point buy. Thats +2 AC.
Drop the two increases to strength and put those into dextarity. Thats another +1 to AC.
OK you indicate that there is 122,374 gp left to spend and that a manual of quickness +2 was acquired for 55,000 gp. Well if we spend another 55,000 gp we could make that a manual of quickness +4. That's another +1 to the AC for a total of AC 70 when fighting with the weapons using their defencive properties.
Your builds better however - unintelligent, low constitution monks are an awful idea...and I think the monk character could, uh - you know, soldier on with a mere 66 AC.
Your builds better however - unintelligent, low constitution monks are an awful idea...and I think the monk character could, uh - you know, soldier on with a mere 66 AC.
Getting the extra 4 points of AC gets into the diminishing returns category, IMO (one thing, 17 and 18 are 3 points each in point buy, so to raise the Dex to 18 would require 12 Str, 10 Con, and 10 Int). I was also using a build that would be possible to achieve though playing a character from 1st to 20th level. A 10 Str, 10 Con, 10 Int halfling monk 1, even with 20 Dex and Dodge, is just meh.
Of course, a character with Two-Weapon Fighting, +5 adamantine breastplate, +5 animated heavy shield, and two +5 defending short swords can tank to a similar degree (10 +10 breastplate +7 shield +5 natural +5 deflection +1 insight +3 Dex = 41 AC; add +15 for defending and Combat Expertise). The AC is lower, but the DR 2/- from the breastplate compensates.
add +15 for defending and Combat Expertise)
Careful now.
You might start a debate over personal opinions.
But the general consensus here is that you can't stack two defending weapon bonuses.
I happen to agree with you, but I am in the minority with my opinion.
I find you to be the one acting like a troll. That type of commentary isn't welcome on this site.Very well.
Let us put this to the test.
Someone, anyone, point out exactly where I initiated a debate with Doug Sundseth over the default D&D rules. And please make sure to include context to verify my intention to debate default D&D rules.
It's the inflamatory language you used in your replies, genius.
add +15 for defending and Combat Expertise)Careful now.
You might start a debate over personal opinions.
But the general consensus here is that you can't stack two defending weapon bonuses.
I happen to agree with you, but I am in the minority with my opinion.
I'd agree with those that say you can't stack these. Their enhancement bonus'. In effect your double dipping from the same bonus and applying them both to AC. Can't do that.
I'd agree with those that say you can't stack these. Their enhancement bonus'. In effect your double dipping from the same bonus and applying them both to AC. Can't do that.But the general consensus here is that you can't stack two defending weapon bonuses.
I happen to agree with you, but I am in the minority with my opinion.
I can see where you are coming from, and within your criteria you would be correct.
But the Defender ability changes the bonus. "...Allows the wielder to transfer some or all of the sword's enhancement bonus to his AC as a bonus that stacks with all others."
The group I am in, and Dragonchess Player's as well I would guess, take that to mean that the bonus to AC becomes an unnamed bonus.
If the bonus remains an enhancement bonus, then no. They won't stack.
EDIT:: Forgot the closing "
It's the inflamatory language you used in your replies, genius.
You are loosing the high ground here.
Your language is inflammatory as well. More subtle than mine, but no less prominent.
the general consensus here is that you can't stack two defending weapon bonuses.
I'd agree with those that say you can't stack these. Their enhancement bonus'. In effect your double dipping from the same bonus and applying them both to AC. Can't do that.
1) The description of the defending property states that it is a bonus that stacks with all other bonuses.
2) You are penalizing your attack and damage rolls with both weapons instead of one.
It's no worse balance-wise (better, in fact) than a +5 heavy shield with +5 defending shield spikes and the Improved Shield Bash feat. Add +5 mithral full plate and Two Weapon Fighting and you get a 38 AC from just the armor, shield, and Dex.
Yes, but a general rule is that no bonus stacks with itself. It's like trying to stack two rings of arcane might - doesn't work.
1) The description of the defending property states that it is a bonus that stacks with all other bonuses.
Not quite. Dodge bonuses stack. For the defending ability, you are penalizing your attacks and damage rolls with that weapon to gain a bonus to AC. If the description had read "transfer some or all of the sword's enhancement bonus to his AC as a special defending bonus" I'd agree with you, but it states "as a bonus that stacks with all others."
As a game balance issue, two defending weapons are less broken than the +5 heavy shield with +5 defending shield spikes, Improved Shield Bash, and Two-Weapon Fighting combo above.
Defending stacks with itself?
That could make fighting a Marilith, Thri-Keen or other many-armed creature a lot more dangerous all of a sudden. I think you can come up with a much higher AC build, if you use a base creature with 4 or 6 arms... ;)
I can see where you are coming from, and within your criteria you would be correct.But the Defender ability changes the bonus. "...Allows the wielder to transfer some or all of the sword's enhancement bonus to his AC as a bonus that stacks with all others."
The group I am in, and Dragonchess Player's as well I would guess, take that to mean that the bonus to AC becomes an unnamed bonus.
If the bonus remains an enhancement bonus, then no. They won't stack.
EDIT:: Forgot the closing "
Well it says the bonus stack with all others but does not say that the bonus becomes unnamed or that the bonus stacks with itself. I think we are in a really grey area.
Of course, a character with Two-Weapon Fighting, +5 adamantine breastplate, +5 animated heavy shield, and two +5 defending short swords can tank to a similar degree (10 +10 breastplate +7 shield +5 natural +5 deflection +1 insight +3 Dex = 41 AC; add +15 for defending and Combat Expertise). The AC is lower, but the DR 2/- from the breastplate compensates.
I'd go with a mithral breastplate over the DR. DR 2/- is hardly noticeable by the time one is at a level where they can reasonably afford such an item. Generally speaking raising ones AC by 2 reduces the number of hits that land by 10% and that generally better then taking 2 points less damage per hit most of the time. Playing with a calculator and I think the cut off point is when hits average 10 points of damage (people really good with math can correct me here - *I think* means exactly that, I'm not sure).
If on average the foes you face do 10 points of damage with a hit then your equally good taking either the AC bonus or the DR reduction. As they are mathematically equivalent. However if your opponents do less damage on average then the DR is a better option while the armour is a better option for foes that, on average, hit harder. Oddly enough I think that by the time one can afford adamantine armour it is usually no longer a good choice mathematically compared to just getting better AC.
Well it says the bonus stack with all others but does not say that the bonus becomes unnamed or that the bonus stacks with itself. I think we are in a really grey area.
Oh, you are so correct here on several points.
It is a really gray area, which is precisely why there is so much debate over it.
I can not argue with a DM who says the bonus doesn't stack with the bonus from another defending weapon. I can't. There are just too many strong arguments for it.
But at the same time, I agree with - and can't argue with, a DM who says they do stack.
And this is my train of thought as to why:
Round 1) My character transfers the bonus from his +5 Defending Longsword to his AC and does whatever. So far, all is clear.
Round 2) My character draws his +5 Defending Dagger, and decides to transfer the bonus to his AC.
Now, if the bonus stacks with all others, it should stack with the defense bonus already in play.
If it doesn't stack with the bonus from the Longsword, then the statement that the bonus stacks with all others becomes false.
And if the bonus to AC from a Defending weapon doesn't count as a bonus to AC.... What is it?
It doesn't clarify the situation any, but it makes the most sense to me that it does stack.
By the way... Does any one know what the ruling is on Defending bonus' stacking in any of the Living campaigns?
I think that is the closest we will ever get to an "official" ruling on the subject.
|
I'd go with a mithral breastplate over the DR. DR 2/- is hardly noticeable by the time one is at a level where they can reasonably afford such an item. Generally speaking raising ones AC by 2 reduces the number of hits that land by 10% and that generally better then taking 2 points less damage per hit most of the time. Playing with a calculator and I think the cut off point is when hits average 10 points of damage (people really good with math can correct me here - *I think* means exactly that, I'm not sure).
In the out-of-range cases where the attacker has an attack bonus equal to or greater than the AC or where the attacker has an attack bonus 20 or more points less than the AC, a 2-point change to the armor class has no effect and the DR is always better.
Through most of the range, the break-even damage number is 20 (mean) per hit. For example, if you need an 11 to hit without armor and a 13 to hit with armor (50% to 40%), the expectation value is 8 points of damage in either case.
On the boundaries, (Attack bonus) = AC-1 or AC+19, the break-even value for mean damage is 40 points.
When you add iterative attacks with steadily decreasing probabilities of hitting, the calculation changes a bit, but that's probably not all that significant for the general calculation.
When the damage numbers start to get high, the increase in AC is almost certainly better if you are at all competitive in your AC. If you are not competing, the DR is better. At low damage numbers, the DR is better.
Through most of the range, the break-even damage number is 20 (mean) per hit. For example, if you need an 11 to hit without armor and a 13 to hit with armor (50% to 40%), the expectation value is 8 points of damage in either case.
Ok some more playing with the calculator and your correct. If your taking hits that average more then 20 points AC is the way to go. If the average hit is less then 20 points then DR is the way to go.
The one exception being if your under assauklt by enemies that always need 20 to hit you in either case and who deal more then 20 points of damage on average. In this case DR is still the better choice...but I think this situation is so improbable we can just ignore it.
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!
You still might be fine. When I started this thread I was wondering if other DMs had noticed this effect. Some of them have but I think on balance most DMs, and even players, have said that they tend to go with a much heavier offensive route.
Playing a defensive game is effective but not very sexy. It would seem that most players prefer to have really awesome weapons and lay the smack down on their enemies. For a DM that can be a real problem if you players have come up with some crazy combo that obliterates all enemies on the battlefield (and I have seen threads outlining how certain parties can do this) but, most of the time, its not that much of a show stopper for the DM. Dealing with escalating damage can usually be overcome by the DM in a number of ways - for example by raising the ACs of the opposition!
Hence there is a pretty good chance that this particular problem won't effect you - furthermore if just one player does this it may not be really annoying. One uber AC PC just can't be everywhere. Though, for me, it all started with one PC. Once one of the players does this the effectiveness of the tactic can become apparent and the other players start pumping up their ACs to compensate.
Especially if it starts turning into an arms race, which again, is partly what happened at my table. I started stripping out feats like Alertness from the monsters and replacing them with stuff like Weapon Focus (Monster's favourite weapon) just to help keep up with my invulnerable PC. This lead to increasing hits on that PC but was really notable on the rest of the PCs who where now being hit significantly more often. They in turn started to increase their ACs just to remain competitive.
Once they all put their minds to raising their ACs I noticed that I could just not keep up. Stripping out Alertness and Power Attack to replace with Weapon Focus and Improved Weapon Focus just failed to make up for the fact that the PCs where raising their ACs into the stratosphere.
What did work - after a fashion, was countering by raising the ACs of the bad guys. That, so far, has thrown the players for a loop. They have not really addressed the issue in full because they have not really grasped the pattern as of yet. Their still at the stage where they swear up and down when their modified attack roll of 27 misses, and don't yet realize that they are likely moving into a stage of the game where that is the new normal - for bad guys that have some control of this any way (i.e. are just as capable of going to the magic item section of Wal-Mart as the PCs are).
|
|
In a resource-constrained environment, trading AC for increased damage can result in taking less damage, of course. If you can kill your opponents in two rounds instead of five, your expectation value for damage taken can drop even if your expectation value for damage taken per round goes up significantly.
Like the boundary cases for armor, there are points at which the answer is obvious, but in the middle of the range the tradeoffs are more difficult.