|
For the Power Attack compensation, show how a 20th level full BAB melee character wearing light armor can have an AC greater than 49.
Good points in your previous post. But I'll try just for fun.
AC = 10 + 9 (magic chain shirt) + 6 (Dex) + 5 (deflection) + 2 (Dodge feat) +1 (insight) + 5 (defending weapon) + 5 (natural) + 1 (boots of speed) = 44
A better way to do this would be having bracers of armor +8 and then ramping up Dexterity but you asked for light armor only.
Artificer 11/Cloistered Cleric 1:
10 + 7 bracers + 4 shield + 5 Dex + 7 Deflection + 17 various Misc bonuses sustainable all day. He's melee. He has full BAB via all day divine power.
*smirks*
Meets your criteria exactly. I have 8 levels left. If I were to use them, I would not need the CC dip to exceed that baseline. I also have a 120 (good) fly speed that is always on and consistently hit for hundreds of damage a round without charging (which would magnify this greatly). I also still have most of my infusions for doing that caster thing.
Now that I've made that point, here is the errors in your judgment:
1: You are assuming all of these creatures are unbuffed. Every single one of them except Big T has treasure. Most of them can also cast spells. Their actual stats are going to be higher. And if you don't just look at the stuff they can and should always have on, in other words they have forewarning to prepare it will be much higher.
2: You are assuming they are saddled with whatever junk feats the MM writers gave them. This is about the most common thing to go, as they don't need that Alertness and Toughness spam. That, and since dragons are unique they get a custom feat and spell load out as suited to their natures.
3: You are assuming AC is a valid means of defense. Sure, you can blow around a quarter or more of your level 20 WBL and still get hit on a 2 by anything, often while they are Power Attacking. If they can attack your touch AC in melee you're in a really bad spot. Or you can just ya know, focus on saves and miss chances, be at least as durable against the mooks, and be more durable against the real threats. You'll also save money by switching to Geico.
*smirks* Meets your criteria exactly.
Right, why don't you itemize all the bonuses and how they break down? The +7 deflection looks suspect, for example, and just saying "+17 various Misc bonuses" proves nothing. How many bonuses are stacking that shouldn't? How much is an exploit from misapplying the rules, which you rail against in relation to magical item creation a few posts up?
Now that I've made that point, here is the errors in your judgment:
1. The AC 49 is also unbuffed. Assuming the creatures will be buffed and the characters won't is just as much an error. Considering that PCs will have at least as much access to magic items and spells as the monsters, why are you assuming that the monsters will come out ahead in this sort of contest? Also, considering how common greater dispel and similar effects are, why should you assume that either side keeps their buffs?
2. I'm still waiting for a typical CR 20-24 encounter that can auto-hit AC 49. Which you still haven't provided.
3. You still decline to provide specifics and proof for your opinions (i.e., the full text and source for the collision weapon ability).
Collision: 'When you wield such a weapon you deal an extra 5 points of damage with each hit.'
So, according to the text "extra 5 points of damage" and the rules for critical hits on pg. 140 of the PHB ("Extra damage over and above a weapon's normal damage...is not multiplied when you score a critical hit."), collision damage is not multiplied on a critical.
You're comparing an Elf to a Dwarf, who wasted a feat on Toughness. I'm not touching that one, that's how wrong it is.
No, I'm showing how some 25 and 28 point buy characters stack up against your minimum criteria for "relevant" melee characters. Not so far off, are they? The Toughness for the elf is to help the character survive past 1st level (fighter 1 with 12 Con + Toughness has 14 hp, fighter 1 with 14 Con has 12 hp).
There are not that many ways to hurt things, especially when you rule out the trap options. After all, one handed weapons just aren't valid.
So, a human scout 4/fighter 2/dervish 10/tempest 4 with Two-Weapon Pounce, wielding two +5 keen souldrinking scimitars would be completely ineffective in your opinion? Four (or more, counting haste or A Thousand Cuts) attacks per round with a good chance of hitting (out of six), each of which will inflict a negative level (or two), no penalty to Two-Weapon Fighting with scimitars (from Ambidexterity and Slashing Blades), and full attack and full move (at +5 on attacks and damage, with +1d6 extra damage and +1 AC from Skirmish bonuses) using Dervish Dance.
Now if only you had actually explained where your numbers come from you might have something to smirk about. At the moment your example mostly seems like hot air.Artificer 11/Cloistered Cleric 1:
10 + 7 bracers + 4 shield + 5 Dex + 7 Deflection + 17 various Misc bonuses sustainable all day. He's melee. He has full BAB via all day divine power.
*smirks*
Meets your criteria exactly. I have 8 levels left. If I were to use them, I would not need the CC dip to exceed that baseline. I also have a 120 (good) fly speed that is always on and consistently hit for hundreds of damage a round without charging (which would magnify this greatly). I also still have most of my infusions for doing that caster thing.
AC: +3 Ghost Ward armor, +3 Ghost Ward shield, +1 insight (Parrying), +5 profane (Law Devotion), +2 sacred (Silverbeard), +3 unnamed (Defending) = 17.
I was being snarky, but the example was quite serious.
7 deflection = see Scintillating Scales (if I were using Polymorph, this would jump into the 20s for a total AC around 70).
Monsters come out ahead in a buffing contest because they already have better stats. For example your typical Outsider has a lot of natural armor, and dex, but that's it. Getting an armor bonus, shield bonus, enhancement to natural armor... it's really freakin' cheap. Some of them can cast spells, others can UMD (and come standard with that skill). They have more than enough wealth to not feel a loss when using some very cheap consumables.
See: Marilith with AC 48, because she already has Unholy Aura available at will, then can apply Mage Armor, Shield, Barkskin, and Haste to herself (and in some cases other demons) very easily. Only one of those that is halfway approaching expensive is the barkskin, but even then that's only 600 gold. Nothing at CR 17.
There is no reason to list specific examples when the correct answer is any and freakin' all of them. Come on, you only need a +47 to auto hit that. Big T automatically wins. Hell, he PAs a bit and still auto wins. All 6 of the dragons use their spellcasting ability for a few minor buffs, then win. Or Wraithstrike or otherwise ignore your AC and not care. The two outsiders? Both prefer, and are built for ranged combat. Therefore they ignore your AC because they're using their SLAs until you either die, or are effectively dead before meleeing to finish you off.
That's just CR 20. Go any higher, it becomes even easier because Epic = teh borked.
Your examples don't come close. The latest is a bit better, but being dependent on a lot of low damage hits, and precision damage means you fail.
Lastly, do not undermine pure objective fact that anyone with eyes can figure out on their own as being merely my opinion and therefore meaningless. Not only is arguing opinions utterly pointless and impossible, it's a blatant insult on par with calling gravity an opinion.
*makes an apple fall on your head*
No, that's not because my words have some special meaning that makes me always right, just to preemptively torch those straw men. It's because I have Done The Research, and you have not. The identity of the speaker does not matter in this case, only the accuracy of the words. Were I anyone else, the message would be the same.
|
|
Artificer 11/Cloistered Cleric 1:
10 + 7 bracers + 4 shield + 5 Dex + 7 Deflection + 17 various Misc bonuses sustainable all day. He's melee. He has full BAB via all day divine power.
...AC: +3 Ghost Ward armor, +3 Ghost Ward shield, +1 insight (Parrying), +5 profane (Law Devotion), +2 sacred (Silverbeard), +3 unnamed (Defending) = 17.
...
Uh, it appears that you're getting 2 shield bonuses there. one +4 from somewhere and one +3 from the ghost ward shield. not interested in an argument but can you explain how that works? I was under the impression that two bonuses of the same type don't stack. I'm also aware that that doesn't disvalidate your point. like I said, just curious.
Because base shield AC =/= enhancement shield to AC. Otherwise, +x armors and shields would be pointless now wouldn't they? Same as Barkskin (you can Alter Self + Barkskin and they will stack), and same as Magic Vestment (does the same thing as +x armors and shields).
|
|
Because base shield AC =/= enhancement shield to AC. Otherwise, +x armors and shields would be pointless now wouldn't they? Same as Barkskin (you can Alter Self + Barkskin and they will stack), and same as Magic Vestment (does the same thing as +x armors and shields).
oh! ok. I didn't see that at first. been too long since i had to remember those rules off the top of my head. I thought you were using the shield spell or something. my bad.
Because base shield AC =/= enhancement shield to AC. Otherwise, +x armors and shields would be pointless now wouldn't they? Same as Barkskin (you can Alter Self + Barkskin and they will stack), and same as Magic Vestment (does the same thing as +x armors and shields).oh! ok. I didn't see that at first. been too long since i had to remember those rules off the top of my head. I thought you were using the shield spell or something. my bad.
That too.
+4 shield AC (shield, always on) + 3 enhancement to shield AC via magic vestment which becomes touch AC through Ghost Ward. The physical shield is mostly just there for special properties. Same as the padded armor.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Crusader:
With respect, that's not how I read the rules:
Multiple enhancement bonuses on the same object (in the case of armor and weapons),do not stack. Only the highest enhancement bonus applies.
A magic shield typically grants an enhancement bonus to the shield's shield bonus, which has the effect of increasing the shield's overall bonus to AC.
So, if I carry a magical +3 heavy shield, it gives me an overall +5 bonus to my armor class. But 3 of those bonus units are enhancement bonuses.
You imbue a suit of armor or a shield with an enhancement bonus
If a 17th level cleric casts magic vestmenton that shield, the +4 enhancement bonus from the spell supercedes the permanent +3 enhancement bonus on the shield for 17 hours. instead of giving me +5 AC, it would give me +6 AC.
That seems to be a clear reading of the rules. If there's a FAQ somewhere that contradicts that, I'd be willing to take a look at it.
I think you're right about Alter Self (giving a natural armor bonus) and Barkskin (giving an enhancement bonus to an existing natural armor bonus (!) ) stacking.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
If so, that scheme doesn't work.
A character's armor class can benefit from a single shield bonus. If a character has a physical shield on one arm, and is also under the effects of the shield spell, he is protected by the higher shield bonus.
A magical "plus" to a shield, or the effects of the magic vestment spell, are enhancement bonuses to the shield bonus of the item. This raises the item's shield bonus, so that it might supercede the bonus granted by the shield spell.
For example, I have a shield spell running (+4 shield bonus to my AC) and a heavy shield (+2 shield bonus to my AC). The spell's bonus is larger, so I enjoy a +4 shield bonus to my AC. (Not +6. Only one shield bonus applies.)
I buy a magical +1 heavy shield. (That's a +1 enhancement bonus to the item's shield bonus.) That item now gives me a +3 shield bonus, but the bonus from the spell is still stronger, so I still have a +4 shield bonus to my AC.
So, a 14th Level Cleric comes along and casts magic vestment on my +1 heavy shield. Now, that spell provides a +3 enhancement bonus to the item's shield bonus. That's better than, and temporarily supercedes, the permanent +1 enhancement bonus. So the item now gives me a +2+3 = +5 shield bonus. That's greater than the +4 bonus from the shield spell, so it supercedes it, and my character now enjoys a +5 shield bonus to my AC. (Not +9. Only one shield bonus applies. And not +7, because the magic vestment doesn't enhance the shield bonus of the shield spell.)
At least, that's my understanding. I could be wrong, and I'd be happy to have someone show me where I made an error.
|
If so, that scheme doesn't work.
A character's armor class can benefit from a single shield bonus. If a character has a physical shield on one arm, and is also under the effects of the shield spell, he is protected by the higher shield bonus.
A magical "plus" to a shield, or the effects of the magic vestment spell, are enhancement bonuses to the shield bonus of the item. This raises the item's shield bonus, so that it might supercede the bonus granted by the shield spell.
For example, I have a shield spell running (+4 shield bonus to my AC) and a heavy shield (+2 shield bonus to my AC). The spell's bonus is larger, so I enjoy a +4 shield bonus to my AC. (Not +6. Only one shield bonus applies.)
I buy a magical +1 heavy shield. (That's a +1 enhancement bonus to the item's shield bonus.) That item now gives me a +3 shield bonus, but the bonus from the spell is still stronger, so I still have a +4 shield bonus to my AC.
So, a 14th Level Cleric comes along and casts magic vestment on my +1 heavy shield. Now, that spell provides a +3 enhancement bonus to the item's shield bonus. That's better than, and temporarily supercedes, the permanent +1 enhancement bonus. So the item now gives me a +2+3 = +5 shield bonus. That's greater than the +4 bonus from the shield spell, so it supercedes it, and my character now enjoys a +5 shield bonus to my AC. (Not +9. Only one shield bonus applies. And not +7, because the magic vestment doesn't enhance the shield bonus of the shield spell.)
At least, that's my understanding. I could be wrong, and I'd be happy to have someone show me where I made an error.
It's not obvious to me what the answer is (or whether that is what CoL was talking about). I don't have a problem in principle with the spell granting the shield bonus and the physical magic vestment-ed shield providing the enhancement bonus, but if there's an official WotC ruling that it's not allowed, that won't upset me either and if I had to make my own judgement I'd probably rule against it because I'm generally more inclined to rule against casters.
However, I could just have misunderstood what CoL was doing.
|
yeah,
Definately nerf the Monk Robe, so stupid to give this item out to ANYONE, my party has a monk who wants this and it totally unbalances the game--period. why not give a fighters garter belt out and anyone who wears that gets some of the distinct bonuses of the fighter, or better yet powers the fighter to 4 levels higher. Insanity.
Definately use helmets as a separate form of armor buffing up AC.
Good idea to add some minor damage reduction to heavy armors.
Shields certainly need a boost and a reason for someone use them vs THW.
Getting rid of dex and movement penalties to armor will solve a lot of problems without having to invent more rules.
Paladins are born armor wearers, like knights. Who ever even thinks of paladis not wearing plate--they should fit the archetype by having bonus to plate wearing.
That being said, I cant EVEN BELIEVE that this book can revamp the rogue so completely with rogue powers and such and leave other classes completely gimped with no revamp, just a stab at trying to adjust broken rules to begin with.
Paladin, and ranger needs complete overhaul like the rogue got--period. Anything less is tragedy. Nobody REALLY cares about backward compatibility, they just want something to work. It will be compatible if the rogue is still compatible, belive me. (just a side note--I love what you did with the rogue--just need to do it with all the other classes).
Cheers!
|
|
Nobody REALLY cares about backward compatibility, they just want something to work.
That's not true. It's a huge deal, I think.
It will be compatible if the rogue is still compatible, belive me. (just a side note--I love what you did with the rogue--just need to do it with all the other classes).
Paladin and Ranger do need extra stuff, but I really don't think that the Rogue got 'complete overhaul', either.
+4 shield AC (shield, always on) + 3 enhancement to shield AC via magic vestment which becomes touch AC through Ghost Ward. The physical shield is mostly just there for special properties. Same as the padded armor.
You can only apply either the shield bonus of +4 (shield spell) OR +5 (+3 heavy shield). The enhancement bonus from magic vestment adds to the physical shield, NOT to the shield spell. Similarly, you can only apply either the armor bonus of +7 (bracers of armor) OR +4 (+3 padded armor). The enhancement bonus does NOT apply to the bracers of armor.
Invalid application of the rules.
Also, changing the discussion from light armor vs. heavy armor to no armor/spell effect vs. heavy armor only proves that spellcasters (or equivalents such as artificers) are more powerful than straight melee classes. It says nothing of the relative benefits of light armor and heavy armor.
A character's armor class can benefit from a single shield bonus. If a character has a physical shield on one arm, and is also under the effects of the shield spell, he is protected by the higher shield bonus.
Correct, but I guess he meant the Shield of Faith spell.
Shield of faith grants a deflection bonus, which will not stack with other deflection bonuses.
As far as I know only a Ring of Protection and two other rings out of splat books add a deflection bonus to armor class. Also the list of spells that add a deflection bonus is relatively short(Shield of X, Protection from, Magic Circle, (Un)Holy Aura, Shield Other and some other). As far as I can see none of these where used in CoLs example.Correct, but I guess he meant the Shield of Faith spell.Shield of faith grants a deflection bonus, which will not stack with other deflection bonuses.
7 deflection = see Scintillating Scales (if I were using Polymorph, this would jump into the 20s for a total AC around 70).
Monsters come out ahead in a buffing contest because they already have better stats. For example your typical Outsider has a lot of natural armor, and dex, but that's it. Getting an armor bonus, shield bonus, enhancement to natural armor... it's really freakin' cheap. Some of them can cast spells, others can UMD (and come standard with that skill). They have more than enough wealth to not feel a loss when using some very cheap consumables.
Potion of alter self (300gp) to change into a lizardfolk grants a quick +5 natural armor (which stacks with the amulet of natural armor) for a PC while still allowing the use of all equipment. A party caster with polymorph, as you note, can raise the PC's armor class to obscene levels. A PC, because of Wealth By Level and access to party spellcasters, will have access to a broader range of and more magic than any single monster they would be expected to face.
There is no reason to list specific examples when the correct answer is any and freakin' all of them.
Full buff monster vs. full buff PC. Compare and contrast. Which one will be able to have more and higher stackable bonuses, assuming the same references are available to both?
Again, assuming the monster is buffed and the PC is unbuffed is as much an error of judgement as any you have accused me of.
Shield of Faith is deflection AC, which is not needed here.
Anyways, even if Magic Vestment worked that way before, the fact Ghost Ward is converting that enhancement bonus into touch AC makes it different. Unless you're saying +4 shield AC is still the same thing as +1 shield AC, +3 touch AC?
Makes that grey area solidly defined quite nicely.
It's not necessarily ruling against casters to make normal bonuses and enhancement bonuses not work that way. Bonuses of different types stack. While casters can enjoy this tactic, Magic Vestment is also a requirement in order to make melees function efficiently. So what happens if you rule against it is casters lose a fun toy, and melees lose a necessary tool. Not really ruling against casters.
Lizardfolk have +6 AC. Potions of Alter Self are invalid.
Monsters can buff on far fewer resources as they aren't using most forms of bonus types, yet have fairly solid stats already. Especially dragons and outsiders. A few very cheap spells will give them AC +13, for example.
The PCs meanwhile have small bonuses to a bunch of types, which makes it harder to add more.
Because of this, it is trivially easy for a monster to outbuff the PCs despite their lower resources (and since dragons are casters, their resources aren't really lower).
|
|
It's not necessarily ruling against casters to make normal bonuses and enhancement bonuses not work that way. Bonuses of different types stack. While casters can enjoy this tactic, Magic Vestment is also a requirement in order to make melees function efficiently. So what happens if you rule against it is casters lose a fun toy, and melees lose a necessary tool. Not really ruling against casters.
That's a fair point, given that the caster will then just use the slot to prepare a different spell that'll enable them to steal more glory. I guess that what I meant was that I tend to err on the side of ruling against spells, which will sometimes mean ruling against casters and sometimes against the others. Of course, anything that degrades casters also affects the party as a whole (as they are in the party), but that's subservient to the balance issue when we have balance-in-rules as an aim.
The more I think about it, the more I guess I like some mobility fixes to the caster/melee-non-caster imbalance (including increased mobility for the melees and also the ability to decrease opponent mobility through feats, brilliantly put together so that melees can stop opposition casters from doing stuff more easily, requiring the casters to have tanks because the new tanks will actually work as protectors). But this isn't the thread and I'm probably not the guy to come up with them. And by 'probably', I mean 'definitely'. As to whether these are cast as something pseudo-mystic or just excellent physical capabilities is a flavour issue, I guess (although it'll perhaps take some cleverness to cast them as just physical/tactical/skill-based excellence).
Here's the original character presented for reference:
"When I can have a dwarf fighter 12/battlesmith 4/dwarven defender 4 with an AC of 49 and DR 3/- (counting Heavy Armor Expertise from the dwarf fighter 8 substitution level, Heavy Armor Optimization, Greater Heavy Armor Optimization, Flesh of My Flesh +2 from battlesmith levels, +2 AC from dwarven defender levels, +5 adamantine full plate, +5 heavy steel shield, ring of protection +5, amulet of natural armor +5, and a dusty rose prism Ioun stone; 10 + 8 armor + 5 armor enhancement + 1 Dex + 1 untyped + 2 competence + 2 sacred + 2 dodge + 2 shield + 5 shield enhancement + 5 deflection + 5 natural armor + 1 insight = 49),"
Let's see... at least 8, possibly as high as 10 levels wasted on Fighter, and 4 more on DD (I don't remember what battlesmith does, but given the poster's track record these too are likely wasted levels). Several wasted feats on armor optimization stuff.
Further, this build may be 'unbuffed' but at the same time it is practically incapable of benefiting from being buffed.
Let's see...
This build cannot benefit from Mage Armor and is incapable of casting Shield, or other such effects. Therefore, getting an armor or shield bonus that is higher is impossible.
This build cannot benefit from Magic Vestment, as both items are already +5 (this also means a lot of wasted resources). No enhancement to armor/shield.
This build cannot benefit from Barkskin, due to that preexisting +5 thing.
This build cannot benefit from Shield of Faith, see above. It might be able to get a higher AC with a Polymorph ruling that doesn't involve gear melding into form (yeah right) but aside from that, no.
Hell, of all the tricks I listed the only ones this guy could use is Ghost Ward. And that doesn't increase his AC, it just transfers part of it to touch AC. Great, except being a heavy armor type he still has low touch AC, and the trick would work with any armor.
He certainly can't use Law Devotion, even if he had it because Cha penalty + extreme Multiple Attribute Dependency means he's not going to get much use out of it. Even if he did dip Cloistered Cleric. He'd also have to be evil aligned to prevent that from overlapping with that random sacred bonus he has that was never explained.
49 is his absolute maximum for all practical purposes. Therefore he still gets mauled, and paid out the ass for that privilege.
Compare to mine, which without touching Polymorph still has room for further Dex gains, 1 more point of Bracers, 2 more profane from the 4/day Law Devotion (effectively all day), 4 more from stronger Magic Vestments, 2 more from stronger Defending spikes, and we still haven't touched Polymorph or other uncovered bonus types. Holy Star, anyone? Also, this is at 7 levels lower. I said 8 before. At 8 lower my guy only ties, not beats since he needs Artificer 12 to make Bracers +7. Therefore he has +6 instead, and 49 AC. Though he has enough cash left over an Orange Ioun Stone would not be difficult to obtain. It still works.
Now, back to the actual topic. Someone wearing light armor gets some miss chances. They end up about as well protected against melee attacks (that will auto hit them anyways) while being better protected against everything more dangerous... that is to say, just about everything period. Why? 1: They aren't blowing feats and class features on junk that doesn't do much except some minor AC bonuses and 'walk briskly now'. 2: They aren't blowing nearly as much cash on it, meaning said cash can instead go to more efficient defenses such as the aforementioned miss chances as well as save boosters and such to block the real threats. 3: They have better mobility, therefore they can get in range of the real threats a bit better and stay there instead of being happily moved around and ignored.
|
|
Now, back to the actual topic. Someone wearing light armor gets some miss chances. They end up about as well protected against melee attacks (that will auto hit them anyways) while being better protected against everything more dangerous... that is to say, just about everything period. Why? 1: They aren't blowing feats and class features on junk that doesn't do much except some minor AC bonuses and 'walk briskly now'. 2: They aren't blowing nearly as much cash on it, meaning said cash can instead go to more efficient defenses such as the aforementioned miss chances as well as save boosters and such to block the real threats. 3: They have better mobility, therefore they can get in range of the real threats a bit better and stay there instead of being happily moved around and ignored.
Nice summary.
So what to do... armour as DR (scaling with enhancement bonuses)? I guess that has the virtue of making moderate sense in line with what armour is often modelled as doing (although so far as I'm aware, the actual real-world benefits of armour are still debated by some of the people interested in that stuff).
It occurs to me that I'm somewhat useless in these discussions. But That's Never Stopped Me Before!
First, see edit.
|
|
First, see edit.
Holy monster-edit, Batman.
So, buffability is the issue for that character. That makes sense.
I'm not advocating for "armour as DR" -- I haven't thought about how all this works to say anything about it, really (it's sort of the mechanic underlying Rolemaster combat tables except that heavier armour makes you easier to hit, contra D&D, but Rolemaster crits are where it's at and it's not as if the Rolemaster community don't have issues with the Rolemaster armour system as it is; Runequest has something similar but the hit chance isn't affected by armour at all) -- but I guess it would at least mean that physical armour had dual properties wheras spells had single properties (either enhancement or DR, in general, although of course: a) you can get both cast on you and b) it would require a ruling that a spell armour enhancement bonus didn't give DR, which would be a bit odd when the enhancement bonuses on magical armour are, in fact, from spells/magic, in murky principle).
The armor as DR variant actually means you take more damage by everything you care about, and still more if said things have a means of ignoring DR. The latter is rare, but the former is very common.
I suppose if you don't mind the so called tanks being even more of a glass peashooter, sure. Otherwise, no. I say glass peashooter because cannon implies they are an offensive threat. Walk briskly being capable of beating you means you aren't an offensive threat. Physically holding a shield (his sample build was using a shield, but it wasn't animated) means you aren't a threat of any brand.
|
|
The armor as DR variant actually means you take more damage by everything you care about, and still more if said things have a means of ignoring DR.
You mean compared to wearing lighter armour and keeping the mobility from it? Presumably not compared to wearing heavy armour in the current form compared to wearing heavy armour if you additionally give it DR as standard (although I guess if one went that route, all armour would get some DR, including light armour)?
Given that I'm floating bad ideas, how about allowing armour to carry more enhancement bonuses than general spells can provide (+10 magic armour, say)? But then, presumably that'd require magic armour to be cheaper to avoid being nullified by WBL restrictions anyhow.
The armor as DR variant actually means you take more damage by everything you care about, and still more if said things have a means of ignoring DR.You mean compared to wearing lighter armour and keeping the mobility from it? Presumably not compared to wearing heavy armour in the current form compared to wearing heavy armour if you additionally give it DR as standard (although I guess if one went that route, all armour would get some DR, including light armour)?
Given that I'm floating bad ideas, how about allowing armour to carry more enhancement bonuses than general spells can provide (+10 magic armour, say)? But then, presumably that'd require magic armour to be cheaper to avoid being nullified by WBL restrictions anyhow.
Since you never specified, I presume you meant the official variant where all armors have their AC halved and the difference made into DR/-. So the full plate guy has 4 lower AC and DR 4/-. Sounds great, until you realize anything with a better than 1:1 ratio on PA is hurting him worse, and these are the greatest offensive threats and therefore the things he cares about. He gets no benefit against 1:1 PAers, and since he's getting hit 20% more often, guess what? He's taking more damage overall even if you don't look at PA.
Meanwhile guy in a mithril breastplate has exactly 1 less AC than the full plate guy (and 2 less DR, but eh). Naturally, this makes heavy armors even more pointless. He has 2 lower AC overall so he gets smacked by the PAers more than he otherwise would have as well. Still, he loses less comparably.
You could give armors a higher cap than Magic Vestment can provide, but it still means having to waste a crapload of resources on plain AC, when you need those special mods (and Magic Vestment to fill the gap). AC is already 'too damn expensive to be efficient to get compared to more reliable and broader defenses' stat. That would only amplify that effect, or do nothing (because everyone disregards it as a non option).
|
|
Since you never specified, I presume you meant the official variant where all armors have their AC halved and the difference made into DR/-. So the full plate guy has 4 lower AC and DR 4/-. Sounds great, until you realize anything with a better than 1:1 ratio on PA is hurting him worse, and these are the greatest offensive threats and therefore the things he cares about. He gets no benefit against 1:1 PAers, and since he's getting hit 20% more often, guess what? He's taking more damage overall even if you don't look at PA.
Meanwhile guy in a mithril breastplate has exactly 1 less AC than the full plate guy (and 2 less DR, but eh). Naturally, this makes heavy armors even more pointless. He has 2 lower AC overall so he gets smacked by the PAers more than he otherwise would have as well. Still, he loses less comparably.
You could give armors a higher cap than Magic Vestment can provide, but it still means having to waste a crapload of resources on plain AC, when you need those special mods (and Magic Vestment to fill the gap). AC is already 'too damn expensive to be efficient to get compared to more reliable and broader defenses' stat. That would only amplify that effect, or do nothing (because everyone disregards it...
Oh, OK, I didn't even know that there was an official variant. I was thinking of adding DR without changing the AC bonus. Your analysis of the official variant looks right to me.
On the higher cap thing, yeah, as I said, they'd have to make magic armour cheaper for it to be worth having, but that's not going to change nothing but what I want it to change, either. Even if it did, it wouldn't change the fact that physics+magic approach gets dominated by magic, in which case why not go the wuxia-style route and at least avoid the need for the Magic Item Christmas Tree to be the solution (other than flavour, I guess).
This build cannot benefit from Mage Armor and is incapable of casting Shield, or other such effects. Therefore, getting an armor or shield bonus that is higher is impossible.
+4 from mage armor vs. +18 from armor + enhancement + substitution level + feats + class features. +4 from shield vs. +7 from shield + enhancement. He's already gaining the maximum possible armor and shield bonuses available.
This build cannot benefit from Magic Vestment, as both items are already +5 (this also means a lot of wasted resources). No enhancement to armor/shield.
The maximum possible enhancement bonuses are already included. Note that the method you used (enhancement bonuses add to spell effects instead of the items you cast magic vestment on) is completely and utterly invalid.
This build cannot benefit from Barkskin, due to that preexisting +5 thing.
Again, the maximum possible enhancement bonus is already included.
This build cannot benefit from Shield of Faith, see above. It might be able to get a higher AC with a Polymorph ruling that doesn't involve gear melding into form (yeah right) but aside from that, no.
Shield of faith can only grant a maximum of +5 deflection, the same as a ring of protection +5.
PHB, pg. 263 in the description of polymorph: "This spell functions like alter self, except that you change a willing subject into another form of living creature."
PHB, pg. 197 in the description of alter self: "When the change occurs, your equipment, if any, either remains worn or held by the new form (if it is capable of wearing or holding the item), or melds into the new form and becomes nonfunctional." (emphasis mine)
So, any Medium size Humanoid or bipedal Aberration, Dragon, Fey, or Monstrous Humanoid form would keep and be able to use any and all original equipment. This includes (in the MM) bugbear (+3 NA), doppleganger (+4 NA), dryad (+3 NA), gnoll (+1 NA), grimlock (+4 NA), green hag (+11 NA), half-dragon (+4 NA, plus keep all original racial abilities), kuo-toa (+6 NA), lizardfolk (+5 NA, it's on pg. 169), locathah (+3 NA), medusa (+3 NA), mind flayer (+3 NA), minotaur (+5 NA), sahuagin (+5 NA), satyr (+4 NA), skum (+2 NA), yuan-ti pureblood (+1 NA), and yuan-ti halfblood (+4 NA).
He certainly can't use Law Devotion, even if he had it because Cha penalty + extreme Multiple Attribute Dependency means he's not going to get much use out of it. Even if he did dip Cloistered Cleric. He'd also have to be evil aligned to prevent that from overlapping with that random sacred bonus he has that was never explained..
Again, stop attempting to change your argument from light armor vs. heavy armor to no armor/spell effect vs. any armor. No one is arguing that spellcasters can't get high ACs regardless of armor; instead, I'm arguing that a non-spellcaster character wearing heavy armor can get a higher AC than a non-spellcaster character wearing light armor.
If you want to argue using a spellcaster, stack it up (using the same ability scores, adjusted for race) against a dwarf cleric 8/battlesmith 2/fist of Raziel (from Book of Exalted Deeds) 10 with Heavy Armor Optimization, Practiced Spellcaster, +1 ghost ward adamantine full plate (improved to +5 with magic vestment), +1 ghost ward heavy steel shield (improved to +5 with magic vestment), amulet of natural armor +5 (since barkskin is not a class spell, unless the Plant domain is taken), shield of faith for +5 deflection AC (or scintilating scales for +7 if it's on the cleric spell list), Law Devotion for +4 profane AC (Cha mod for a dwarf being one lower), and a +1 defending weapon (improved to +5 with greater magic weapon). AC = 10 + 8 armor + 5 armor enhancement + 1 feat + 1 sacred + 1 Dex + 2 heavy shield + 5 shield enhancement + 5 natural armor enhancement + 5 (or 7) deflection + 4 profane +5 defending = 52 (or 54). Your strategy (corrected to reflect the actual attainable bonuses) results in AC = 10 + 5 armor (mithral breastplate) + 5 armor enhancement (magic vestment) + 5 Dex + 1 light shield + 5 shield enhancement (magic vestment) + 5 natural armor enhancement (barkskin) + 7 deflection (scintilating scales) + 5 profane (Law Devotion) +2 sacred (Silverbeard) + 5 defending = 55. If scintilating scales is on the cleric list and the dwarf uses point buy to get 10 Dex (2) and 14 Cha (10, 16-2) instead of 14 Dex (6) and 12 Cha (6, 14-2), so as to have +3 Dex mod and + 5 Cha mod with +6 Dex and Cha items (instead of + 5 Dex mod and +4 Cha mod), then the dwarf cleric gains the same AC, plus DR 3/-.
Also, the non-spellcaster dwarf, unbuffed (therefore not subject to having bonuses disappear from dispel magic effects) and using only core items, can gain an AC of only one less (with the defending shield spikes), plus DR 3/-. The non-spellcaster actually comes out ahead in one respect, since the full enhancement bonus of his melee weapon is available on attack and damage rolls instead of being used to boost AC.
Re: the sacred bonus, the battlesmith class ability Flesh of My Flesh is classified as a sacred bonus. I listed the bonuses in the same order as the causes. Also, the only alignment restriction would be for dwarven defender (any Lawful). Besides, your build would be under the same requirement for Law Devotion (profane) and Silverbeard (sacred) to stack, wouldn't it?
Missing the point, your math is wrong, and a whole lot of redundancy.
Also, learn what those spells and effects actually do before commenting. Learn how I'm getting these bonuses. Lastly, straw man less. Your post cannot be more wrong. Next.
BTW, ghost ward only applies to incorporeal touch attacks. See pg. 75 of Libris Mortis: "A suit of armor or shield with this property allows its wearer to add the armor or shield's enhancement bonus (but not its armor or shield bonus) to his Armor Class against incorporeal touch attacks (but not against other touch attacks)." (emphasis mine)
Again, wrong. Rephrase your post in the form of a non wall of nothing text if you want more in depth replies.
Missing the point, your math is wrong, and a whole lot of redundancy. Next.
"The point?" You have been arguing (up until you brought out your artificer example), that light armor (especially mithral breastplate or chain shirt) is the best armor to wear for protective qualities. Now that I have proven that using the same spells and bonus granting techniques can result in a character in heavy armor with the same AC, plus DR, as your artificer in light armor (which is only +1 AC more than the original non-spellcaster character also using a defending weapon), I'm missing the point.
"Math is wrong?" In what way? You were attempting to stack an enhancement bonus to padded armor on the armor bonus from bracers of armor and an enhancement bonus to a light shield on the shield bonus from a shield. That is an invalid application of an enhancement bonus. See pg. 308 in the PHB: "A bonus that represents an increase in the sturdiness and/or effectiveness of armor or natural armor, or the effectiveness of a weapon, or a general bonus to an ability score. Multiple enhancement bonuses on the same object (in the case of armor and weapons), creature (in the case of natural armor), or ability score do not stack. Only the highest enhancement bonus applies. Since enhancement bonuses to armor or natural armor effectively increase the armor or natural armor's bonus to AC, they don't apply against touch attacks." By what convolution of logic does an improvement to a physical object (padded armor, light shield) increase the benefit of a magical effect (bracers of armor) or a spell (shield)? If you mean the artificer vs. dwarf cleric, then post the full details of the artificer, to include ability scores, advances, stat boosting items/spells, and the AC affecting class features, feats, magic items, and spells and compare to a dwarf cleric/battlesmith/fist of Raziel using all the same AC affecting feats, magic items, and spells that are available, plus Heavy Armor Optimization.
You one again decline to back up your argument with specifics.
|
|
Again, wrong. Rephrase your post in the form of a non wall of nothing text if you want more in depth replies.
Crusader,
I find your posts on these boards mostly annoying. For someone whose name indicates you support logic, you commit a lot of logical fallacies. It still appears you cannot distinguish between an opinion based upon facts and a fact. Let me try to make an example:
90% of survey respondents say chocolate is delicious. It is a fact that chocolate is delicious.
That is not a fact. That is an opinion. It is an opinion that is widely shared and widely held. But we wouldn't expect someone to say 'chocolate is delicious, but I hate the taste'. They might say 'chocolate is disgusting'.
So, since I know that you're interested in keeping the level of discourse high, I humbly ask you to stop being so dismissive of other people, explain why you came to conclude your opinions are facts (share the basis of the education) and generally stop being a jerk.
Again, wrong. Rephrase your post in the form of a non wall of nothing text if you want more in depth replies.
I'm guessing this is in response to the quoted description of ghost ward.
+ 3 enhancement to shield AC via magic vestment which becomes touch AC through Ghost Ward.
According to the property description, ghost ward applies against incorporeal attacks only. In fact, the description specifically states it does not apply to other touch attacks. Your statement that it adds to general touch AC is incorrect.
The DM guy is being ignored for general hypocrisy. And starting stuff.
Ghost Ward specifically states all touch AC, including incorporeal touch.
Your quote proves nothing, your AC numbers are wrong. You are attacking the wrong point in the first place (see straw man).
|
|
The DM guy is being ignored for general hypocrisy. And starting stuff.
Ghost Ward specifically states all touch AC, including incorporeal touch.
Your quote proves nothing, your AC numbers are wrong. You are attacking the wrong point in the first place (see straw man).
You are wrong. Dragonchess is correct. I have the book open in front of me. It quite clearly says it only applies to incorporeal touch attacks (but not against other touch attacks).
Ghost Ward specifically states all touch AC, including incorporeal touch.
Your quote proves nothing, your AC numbers are wrong. You are attacking the wrong point in the first place (see straw man).
"I'm right, even though the published text says I'm not. You're wrong, even though I can't show where you made a mistake. I'm going to change the subject now, because I'm losing this argument."
Fine. My statements have been supported with enough information to be verifiable, so I don't need to continue this any further.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Again, wrong. Rephrase your post in the form of a non wall of nothing text if you want more in depth replies.
Actually, he's right; or at least, my straightforward reading of the rules for ghost ward supports his interpretation. Against corporeal creatures, it has no effect at all. It doesn't transfer an change the type or target of a bonus (an enhancement bonus to shield turning into a shield bonus on a character), which is what you're using it to do. If you have any evidence supporting that (maybe a "Sage Advice" column or some other ruling...?) it would have been helpful to cite that.
--+--+--
Speaking only for myself, I don't necessarily want a deeper reply from you (which is what I think you mean).
Frankly, I think you have access to a lot of books, and you probably read comments by people who understand them pretty well. But you proceed on oddball interpetations of rules (magic vestment and ghost ward being the two most immediate examples) and simple arithmetic errors. You don't keep things straight. And when people try to engage you on these topics, you're cavalier about any errors you might be committing, or, as you're doing here, you look for excuses not to reply.
"I don't like your formatting, so I'll insult that instead of discussing the topic." Seriously?
Merely claiming someone is "wrong", without any explanation is disrespectful. It increases the heat in the thread without any light.
The tone on these boards is casual, but not disrespectful. Honestly, it seems as if you don't understand the difference.
You are wrong. Dragonchess is correct. I have the book open in front of me. It quite clearly says it only applies to incorporeal touch attacks (but not against other touch attacks).The DM guy is being ignored for general hypocrisy. And starting stuff.
Ghost Ward specifically states all touch AC, including incorporeal touch.
Your quote proves nothing, your AC numbers are wrong. You are attacking the wrong point in the first place (see straw man).
False. Learn to read.
"A suit of armor or shield that has this property allows you to add its enhancement bonus (but not its armor or shield bonus) to your Armor Class against touch attacks (including incorporeal touch attacks)."
I am dismissing his posts out of hand because he is not only horribly wrong on all counts, but is also prone to writing a whole lot of nothing creating indecipherable walls of text that are literally painful to sift through. If I had at least a general idea of where he was coming from perhaps he could be responded to in more detail. But this is not the case.
Oh and the Sage is addicted to illicit mind altering substances. His judgment is invalid at best, and self contradictory and immensely stupid at worst (did you know he is the one that made the you are your own ally ruling that creates infinite action loops, and the one that said orange ioun stones stack even though they are bonuses from the same source?)
|
|
You are wrong. Dragonchess is correct. I have the book open in front of me. It quite clearly says it only applies to incorporeal touch attacks (but not against other touch attacks).The DM guy is being ignored for general hypocrisy. And starting stuff.
Ghost Ward specifically states all touch AC, including incorporeal touch.
Your quote proves nothing, your AC numbers are wrong. You are attacking the wrong point in the first place (see straw man).
False. Learn to read.
"A suit of armor or shield that has this property allows you to add its enhancement bonus (but not its armor or shield bonus) to your Armor Class against touch attacks (including incorporeal touch attacks)."
I am dismissing his posts out of hand because he is not only horribly wrong on all counts, but is also prone to writing a whole lot of nothing creating indecipherable walls of text that are literally painful to sift through. If I had at least a general idea of where he was coming from perhaps he could be responded to in more detail. But this is not the case.
Oh and the Sage is addicted to illicit mind altering substances. His judgment is invalid at best, and self contradictory and immensely stupid at worst (did you know he is the one that made the you are your own ally ruling that creates infinite action loops, and the one that said orange ioun stones stack even though they are bonuses from the same source?)
False, learn to read yourself. What Dragonchess quoted is correct for the source he is using. Please look at Libris Mortis, page 75 for yourself to confirm. Also please provide page and book for your source. If you're using a different book, that might explain why there is a disagreement.
MIC 11. Why would he be assuming I am using a clearly irrelevant source? See straw man.
In any case he's still missing the point (AC is not a valid defense, being able to catch enemies is a valid ability), and everyone else is still missing the point (this is not about Crusader of Logic is a meanieface - let's all be passive aggressive towards him, this is about heavy armor being utter junk and those who specialize in it are gimping themselves for no gain).
CoL: For my own clarification, could you explain why it's irrelevant that he's using a different source than you?
Clearly my context assumes the bonus to touch AC actually applies. Since we are not discussing ghosts, clearly this means the touch AC bonus is capable of being applied against corporeal creatures. Therefore, citing an example where it does not apply against corporeal creatures is invalid. And since Libris Mortis is a fairly obscure source for items, and MIC is a fairly mainstream source... it could just be a mistake, but he has a history of straw mans, making that more likely.
Edit: MIC is where you go for cool items that don't suck. Compare to the DMG, which has very little in the way of things that are not plain +x to y stat (required staple, but not interesting) that are still worth taking as opposed to being far too expensive for what it does, or simply useless.