A friend of mine joined a 3.5 game of ours late in levels (around 16-18 I think) and the GM let him make a character in line with the party level. He said he was taking absolutely nothing that would boost his AC since as he put it "the monsters are going to hit you regardless at this level unless you buy every single piece of AC boosting magic and max out your armor's +... at that point you've got nothing left to buy other items or weapons so why bother? The key is to outlast your opponent with your hitpoints and the Cleric's ability to heal. You're going to get hit. Every time... and it's even worse at epic levels".
Is he right? Thoughts?
At those levels, the vast amounts of money you have are far better spent on a cloak of major displacement. That applies a flat 50% miss chance, regardless of your enemies' attack bonuses, and you're not stuck with an easy touch AC vs. difficult standard AC. The only thing you have to watch out for is enemies with true seeing, but they're not exactly popping out of the woodwork.
Mathematically, AC increases rapidly at first (armor vs. no armor is a HUGE jump), but eventually reaches a point of diminishing returns, and ultimately levels off. Monster attack bonuses, however, continue to increase forever.
Mathematically, AC increases rapidly at first (armor vs. no armor is a HUGE jump), but eventually reaches a point of diminishing returns, and ultimately levels off. Monster attack bonuses, however, continue to increase forever.
Oh, man. That's a very bleak outlook. I never thought about it like that.
Maybe the best defense is a good offense?
Oh, man. That's a very bleak outlook. I never thought about it like that. Maybe the best defense is a good offense?
Yeah; at high levels in 3.5 it's like rocket launcher tag: win initiative and hit the monsters with save-or-lose spells before they close in and eat everyone. If you're playing at that level, and if the DM is ruthless in playing the monsters, you're better off with more spells than you are with warriors, which is my whole beef with 3.0/3.5/3.PF.
I do like the way AC works, but I wouldn't mind ALL classes having bonuses to it by level, like conan. It works great, and it's easily doable.
Low-level gameplay shouldn't be the same as high-level gameplay.
AC tapers off compared to attack value because you WANT everyone to be able to hit more, especially as they start getting iterative attacks. If AC didn't taper off, the iterative attacks (and attacks from classes without a 1-for-1 BAB) would fail most of the time.
After all, if you scale monster AC vs. fighter attack roll, the best fighter attack should hit 50% of the time, the first fighter iterative would only hit 25% of the time, and the 2nd fighter iterative would only hit on a 20. And at level 10 the cleric and rogue would be 15% worse than the fighter, with an increasing class disparity the higher levels go.
If AC didn't taper off, the iterative attacks (and attacks from classes without a 1-for-1 BAB) would fail most of the time.
I see what you're saying, but just don't agree that the iterative attack penalties are, in and of themselves, a good enough idea to scale the rest of the system around them -- especially insofar as dragons and such don't attack at -0/-5/-10/-15 with bite/claws/wings/tail; they attack at -0/-2/-2/-2/-2 (Multiattack feat). But, in the words of the goofy manager at work, "it is what it is."
Low-level gameplay shouldn't be the same as high-level gameplay.
AC tapers off compared to attack value because you WANT everyone to be able to hit more, especially as they start getting iterative attacks. If AC didn't taper off, the iterative attacks (and attacks from classes without a 1-for-1 BAB) would fail most of the time.
After all, if you scale monster AC vs. fighter attack roll, the best fighter attack should hit 50% of the time, the first fighter iterative would only hit 25% of the time, and the 2nd fighter iterative would only hit on a 20. And at level 10 the cleric and rogue would be 15% worse than the fighter, with an increasing class disparity the higher levels go.
I agree with you there. We do want everything to hit more, but not ALL the time, and it happens quite a lot. I think that's the main problem. I don't want the fighter to hit 50% of the time with his best attack. But I don't want him to hit with 95% of the time on the first and the second one either.
One major disparity with a PC's AC is that it doesn't increase with the character's "CR." However, as he gains levels, he encounters creatures with higher CRs, and predictably, higher ACs. I think all anyone's asking for is "if the monsters (collectively) gain in AC as they (collectively) increase in CR, then why couldn't the PCs do it"?
I see what you're saying, but just don't agree that the iterative attack penalties are, in and of themselves, a good enough idea to scale the rest of the system around them -- especially insofar as dragons and such don't attack at -0/-5/-10/-15 with bite/claws/wings/tail; they attack at -0/-2/-2/-2/-2 (Multiattack feat).
I think Bite/Claw/Claw/Wing/Wing/Tail is at -0/-0/-0/-2(5)/-2(5)/-2(5). Even better :-)
At higher levels displacement and similar concealment effects tend to also become useless, as all your foes have true seeing, detect invisible, blindsight, tremorsense, and similar things that render such effects totally useless.
AC, on the other hand, is never useless.
THe key to AC is simply to follow the guidelines and maximize all the bonuses one by one. That includes, however, bonuses you don't normally max out...namely, Insight, Luck, Sacred, and Morale.
A +1 DISMAL Ring (Deflection, Insight, Sacred, Morale, And Luck) gives a +5 bonus to AC for about 15K. It gives a +10 bonus to AC for about 50k, the cost of a +5 Deflection Ring. And it gives +15 AC for about 175k.
And, mind you, that's all Touch AC.
Touch AC is typically only found on creatures with low TH rolls, or those rolling single attacks. Ranged Touch Attacks against a Fighter with Shield Ward, Ranged Augmentation Crystal, and Energized Armor are going to fail except on a Nat 20.
Getting a high AC is almost universally useful, since combat is such a big part of the game.
Oh, and BTW. The same effect for AC works for saves. at level 21, if you don't promptly get +20ish to all saves as a matter of course, you just aren't thinking.
Great AC easily outpaces monster TH's if you concentrate on it, and approach it smartly. SOmeone is bound to argue that it just means they will hit you with spells, but not all creatures have spells, and like I noted, you can buff your save to the moon fairly easily, too.
===Aelryinth
I agree with you there. We do want everything to hit more, but not ALL the time, and it happens quite a lot. I think that's the main problem. I don't want the fighter to hit 50% of the time with his best attack. But I don't want him to hit with 95% of the time on the first and the second one either.Low-level gameplay shouldn't be the same as high-level gameplay.
AC tapers off compared to attack value because you WANT everyone to be able to hit more, especially as they start getting iterative attacks. If AC didn't taper off, the iterative attacks (and attacks from classes without a 1-for-1 BAB) would fail most of the time.
After all, if you scale monster AC vs. fighter attack roll, the best fighter attack should hit 50% of the time, the first fighter iterative would only hit 25% of the time, and the 2nd fighter iterative would only hit on a 20. And at level 10 the cleric and rogue would be 15% worse than the fighter, with an increasing class disparity the higher levels go.
Actually, you DO want the melee to hit 95%, because that's his specialty...hitting stuff. He has to reliably be able to do damage. Since he doesn't do the damage/action that a wizard does, he has to do his damage pretty much all the time to be relevant. The wizard has the 100%/0% problem with his spells...take it down instantly or have no effect at all. The fighter has to be able to take something down in a round or two, and to do that, they need to be able to hit, and with room to spare, all the time.
It's the second stringer meleers who should be missing more of the time, not the primary melees!
===
As for scaling AC, your only solution to the 'scale by level' is to take AC off of items and apply it to the classes. Take away enhancement to armor, nat armor, and the like, and you can easily introduce a scaling AC benefit. It's exactly how 4E uses it, and they are extremely rigid on any deviation from AC progression. Getting extra AC and TH is one of the hardest things to do in 4E for a reason.
===Aelryinth
...
A +1 DISMAL Ring (Deflection, Insight, Sacred, Morale, And Luck) gives a +5 bonus to AC for about 15K. It gives a +10 bonus to AC for about 50k, the cost of a +5 Deflection Ring. And it gives +15 AC for about 175k.And, mind you, that's all Touch AC....
===Aelryinth
i could see that insight and luck could apply to the touch ac... but sacred and morale? i searched briefly and i didn't found anything about that...
And, i know you could craft a item with diferent bonuses for more gold, but i don't see where are the prices for including sacred/insight/morale/luck bonuses... could you point it out these for me, please? /ninja'ed, i founded them, now im doing some math :P
I still have a very dificult time knowing all types of bonuses and which ones are stacable with each other, armor and itself. Can't you guys that are experts make a quick explanation on them all?
I still have a very dificult time knowing all types of bonuses and which ones are stacable with each other, armor and itself. Can't you guys that are experts make a quick explanation on them all?
if the bonuses got diferent names, staks...
the odd thing with touch ac is that they never clarify if the sacred/profane/luck/morale/insight actually works...In my honest opinion (thats what IMHO means?) luck and insight bonus would add to the touch AC, but its only interpratation...
Is AC useless at high level? Not at all. Why? Two words:
Power
Attack
Those without decent AC are going to be hit with a nasty PA every time. Instead of taking weapon damage, you take weapon damage + a boatload more.
The most to-hit you lose from Power Attack now is 6. It doesn't make a shadow of the difference it used to, certainly not enough to call it out in this manner.
6 is still a lot, though. Unbuffed and using only core items, a fighter can have 40 AC (Shield Focus and Dodge) as early as level 15.
Consider that a balor has +31 to all his attacks: he has to roll an 9, giving him a 60% chance to hit. If he power attacks, he needs a 15: only 30%.
Even the tarrasque, with his +37, needs a 3... and with +30 BAB he power attacks for 8, which brings that up to 11.
Now, that's a fighter. Other classes don't climb quite as high. But those are also some of the best attack bonuses in the game. I don't think AC ever becomes totally irrelevant, at least if you can use a shield.
Edit: Forgot that tower shields have a max Dex. By RAW, they're made of wood (no mithral) and a fighter's armor training arguably doesn't apply. Stupid, stupid tower shields. Switched to a large shield to avoid controversy. Tarrasque still has a chance to miss, so the example remains valid. :)
:-)
:-)
But that wasn't even tongue-in-cheek. :)
Level 15 standard wealth: 240k
Ring of Protection +5: -50k
Amulet of Natural Armor +5: -50k
Belt of Incredible Dexterity +6: -36k (you need 24 Dex)
mithral full plate +5: -29.5k
heavy shield +5: -25.3k
Remaining: 49.2k. Enough for a +4 weapon and some ancillary fun stuff!
|
Mathematically, AC increases rapidly at first (armor vs. no armor is a HUGE jump), but eventually reaches a point of diminishing returns, and ultimately levels off. Monster attack bonuses, however, continue to increase forever.
We implemented a house rule that addressed this concept of diminished return: Base Defense Bonus (1/2 of BAB). Add this in to AC and you'll see that the higher level characters (and creatures) are harder to hit.
Of course, we also added gore to the game by adding 1/2 BAB to melee and ranged damage.
Seriously wicked fights.
:-)
But that wasn't even tongue-in-cheek. :)
Level 15 standard wealth: 240k
Ring of Protection +5: -50k
Amulet of Natural Armor +5: -50k
Belt of Incredible Dexterity +6: -36k (you need 24 Dex)
mithral full plate +5: -29.5k
heavy shield +5: -25.3kRemaining: 49.2k. Enough for a +4 weapon and some ancillary fun stuff!
It could be that my math is horribly mangled, but with Dodge and Shield Focus that is a +40 to AC. Making for AC 50. So the tarrasque now needs to roll 13 or higher to hit our fighter friend. And Power Attack would take a nat 20 to hit. Of course you spent 79.5% of your gold on armor bonuses, which was part of the OP's point. Then again, for a fighter, that doesn't seem wholly unreasonable to me.
|
A friend of mine joined a 3.5 game of ours late in levels (around 16-18 I think) and the GM let him make a character in line with the party level. He said he was taking absolutely nothing that would boost his AC since as he put it "the monsters are going to hit you regardless at this level unless you buy every single piece of AC boosting magic and max out your armor's +... at that point you've got nothing left to buy other items or weapons so why bother? The key is to outlast your opponent with your hitpoints and the Cleric's ability to heal. You're going to get hit. Every time... and it's even worse at epic levels".
Is he right? Thoughts?
Your friend is wrong.
I DMed a group through AoW and to level 24-25, and I also had a friend (the archmage) who adopted the same philosophy. Long story short: this guy got killed four times between levels 18 and 24, while none of the (properly AC'ed) others did not.
The "no AC boost" philosophy breaks down when you encounter a big boss with 4 or 5 minions: the properly protected PCs can afford to ignore the minions and focus on the big guy while the lame "fleshies" who pooled all their cash in that big sword or big staff get absolutely killed (faster than the rate at which the cleric can keep up).
|
|
AC tapers off compared to attack value because you WANT everyone to be able to hit more, especially as they start getting iterative attacks. If AC didn't taper off, the iterative attacks (and attacks from classes without a 1-for-1 BAB) would fail most of the time.
I thought this is why the vital strike feat tree was introduced.
But, yeah. AC does seem to plateau eventually. I noticed in SCAP that my 15th level AC 40 Dervish was still getting pelted by the prize fighter baddies and the best way to counter this was not DR or fast recovery methods, but concealment (blink to be specific).
The benefit of high AC, though, is that you can shrug off the goons' attacks 19 times in 20 and concentrate on facing down the BBEG. "You must be this tall to fight me."
Touch AC is typically only found on creatures with low TH rolls, or those rolling single attacks.
What is "TH"?
Forgot that tower shields have a max Dex. By RAW, they're made of wood (no mithral)
What is "RAW"?
What is "RAW"?
Rules as Written, as in "according to R.A.W.".
As opposed to "Well obviously the writer REALLY meant this," or "I like the effect if you just do THIS instead of RAW" or "Well I prefer to ignore that part". :-)
as a guy that hates magic items, I'm all in favour for adding a class AC bonus.
Batts
What is "TH"?
Probably To Hit.
It could be that my math is horribly mangled, but with Dodge and Shield Focus that is a +40 to AC. Making for AC 50.
Well butter my buns and call me a fat kid. Yep... I totally forgot to add the base 10.
So: what I said, except significantly more so. :)
So: what I said, except significantly more so. :)
Significantly less so, actually. A Balor will do significantly more expected damage by using Power Attack if his foe has 50 AC than not using Power Attack.
Significantly less so, actually. A Balor will do significantly more expected damage by using Power Attack if his foe has 50 AC than not using Power Attack.
Err... no?
Longsword crits on 19-20.
+31 attack vs. AC 50 = hits on 19-20.
Balor averages 20 damage with no power attack.
20 * 0.1 (hit chance) + 20 * 0.1 (crit chance) = 4.
Power attacking, Balor averages 32 damage, hits on 20, crits on 20.
32 * 0.05 (hit chance) + 32 * 0.05 (crit chance) = 3.2. Net loss.
I see your point, though: it would be a gain if AC = 51, or if he was using a crit multiplier weapon instead of a crit range weapon; honestly, the nat20 rule has always done more harm than good IMO. But it's irrelevant this time. ;)
And in either case, damage is WTF less than if he were hitting on a 7.
Low-level gameplay shouldn't be the same as high-level gameplay.
AC tapers off compared to attack value because you WANT everyone to be able to hit more, especially as they start getting iterative attacks. If AC didn't taper off, the iterative attacks (and attacks from classes without a 1-for-1 BAB) would fail most of the time.
After all, if you scale monster AC vs. fighter attack roll, the best fighter attack should hit 50% of the time, the first fighter iterative would only hit 25% of the time, and the 2nd fighter iterative would only hit on a 20. And at level 10 the cleric and rogue would be 15% worse than the fighter, with an increasing class disparity the higher levels go.
Iterative attack drops are one of the problems of the system as written. But, I still play...
Significantly less so, actually. A Balor will do significantly more expected damage by using Power Attack if his foe has 50 AC than not using Power Attack.Err... no?
Longsword crits on 19-20.
+31 attack vs. AC 50 = hits on 19-20.
Balor averages 20 damage with no power attack.
20 * 0.1 (hit chance) + 20 * 0.1 (crit chance) = 4.
Power attacking, Balor averages 32 damage, hits on 20, crits on 20.
32 * 0.05 (hit chance) + 32 * 0.05 (crit chance) = 3.2. Net loss.
I see your point, though: it would be a gain if AC = 51, or if he was using a crit multiplier weapon instead of a crit range weapon; honestly, the nat20 rule has always done more harm than good IMO. But it's irrelevant this time. ;)
And in either case, damage is WTF less than if he were hitting on a 7.
You're not considering iteratives, nor the Balor's whip (which hits on +30, not +31) :) That Balor has one attack out of 6 which hit on anything but a natural 20, which means he's got nothing to lose by Power Attacking.
You're not considering iteratives, nor the Balor's whip (which hits on +30, not +31) :) That Balor has one attack out of 6 which hit on anything but a natural 20, which means he's got nothing to lose by Power Attacking.
Again, this is complication of the auto-hit-on-20 rule which has always been painfully disruptive wrench in the cogs. It creates funky corner cases at the top and bottom of a given probability spread. It absolutely doesn't imply that "AC is irrelevant," which is the topic of the thread and the only thing I'm actually trying to disprove. Compare the Balor's damage when he only hits on natural 20 to his damage when he only misses on natural 1, or even my original mistaken 9, and tell me the extra AC doesn't matter.
It still seems to me that unless you're spending the lion's share of your gold on AC boosts, you're going to be hit every time. My friend's point was that he didn't like being forced to spend so much gold on one aspect when there are so many other cool magic items to buy.
It still seems to me that unless you're spending the lion's share of your gold on AC boosts, you're going to be hit every time. My friend's point was that he didn't like being forced to spend so much gold on one aspect when there are so many other cool magic items to buy.
Err... look again. If you spend the lion's share of your gold on AC boosts, you're almost never going to be hit by a CR 20 at LEVEL 15.
You're not fighting CR 20 at level 15, unless your GM just wants you dead. You can spend less and still do fine. :)
Do note that tejon's example is never going to be possible in actual play. The items you find will never be distributed that heavily towards powerful defensive items, at least by that level, and if you start at level 15 he's waaaaaaaaaaaaay past the 25% wealth by level allowed for defensive magic items. You're also not likely going to have the time and resources for the party wizard to craft everyone half a dozen +5 magic items.
|
Do note that tejon's example is never going to be possible in actual play. The items you find will never be distributed that heavily towards powerful defensive items, at least that level, and if you start at level 15 he's waaaaaaaaaaaaay past the 25% wealth by level allowed for defensive magic items.
Umm I thought the only rule on starting wealth above 1st was that you couldn't blow more than half your starting wealth on a SINGLE item.
EDIT: Okay I found what you're talking about. That's a suggestion Zurai the only rule set in stone is no more than half your wealth can be spent on a single item. Its a little wonky but the wording "For a balanced approach" implies this is not a rule, but a suggestion for how to distribute that wealth for a character at a starting level higher than first.
Umm I thought the only rule on starting wealth above 1st was that you couldn't blow more than half your starting wealth on a SINGLE item.EDIT: Okay I found what you're talking about. That's a suggestion Zurai the only rule set in stone is no more than half your wealth can be spent on a single item. Its a little wonky but the wording "For a balanced approach" implies this is not a rule, but a suggestion for how to distribute that wealth for a character at a starting level higher than first.
And I said it was a rule ... where, again? Technically that entire section isn't a rule, just a guideline.
Isn't this a problem with giving iterative attacks with steep penalties and calling it a major class feature, rather than a problem with AC?
The two were designed together for 3e, and intended so melee classes could try to keep up with area spell damage, but not be so blatant as to be at the same chance to hit as the primary attack--otherwise the fighter's damage per round would double* at level 6, and triple at level 11, and so on.
*not really double, but you know what I mean.
Isn't this a problem with giving iterative attacks with steep penalties and calling it a major class feature, rather than a problem with AC?The two were designed together for 3e, and intended so melee classes could try to keep up with area spell damage, but not be so blatant as to be at the same chance to hit as the primary attack--otherwise the fighter's damage per round would double* at level 6, and triple at level 11, and so on.
*not really double, but you know what I mean.
Since the fighter's output doesn't seem to scale with a spellcaster's, wouldn't this help to close that gap?
And letting melee classes get nice things is a bad idea why? (I know it wasn't your design decision, but you seem to approve of it so I'm wondering your thoughts)
You do realize melee classes dramatically outdamage spellcasters with iterative attacks working the way they currently do, right? Letting them one-round a Balor instead of two-rounding one doesn't really make any difference in the grand scheme of things.
|
|
And I said it was a rule ... where, again? Technically that entire section isn't a rule, just a guideline.
Umm I thought the only rule on starting wealth above 1st was that you couldn't blow more than half your starting wealth on a SINGLE item.EDIT: Okay I found what you're talking about. That's a suggestion Zurai the only rule set in stone is no more than half your wealth can be spent on a single item. Its a little wonky but the wording "For a balanced approach" implies this is not a rule, but a suggestion for how to distribute that wealth for a character at a starting level higher than first.
Do note that tejon's example is never going to be possible in actual play. The items you find will never be distributed that heavily towards powerful defensive items, at least by that level, and if you start at level 15 he's waaaaaaaaaaaaay past the 25% wealth by level allowed for defensive magic items. You're also not likely going to have the time and resources for the party wizard to craft everyone half a dozen +5 magic items.
Don't imply things so heavily.
Don't imply things so heavily.
How about "Don't read into the text what isn't there"?
I wouldn't go so far as to say irrelevent, but I would say it's a sort of clunky mechanic. Personally I like the "armor as DR" variant. Like it has been demonstrated, a FIGHTER who spends the vast majority of his wealth on AC enhancing items is pretty effective. But then he won't do a heck of a lot of damage, compared to other more offensively built characters, and will rightfully be IGNORED by monsters.
It's not something that scales automatically, and depending on DM and campaign style the fact that it scales almost exclusively through magical enhancements is an achilles heel of the combat system IMHO.
If a monster has a +20 to hit then you need at least a 23 AC to feel the slightest benefit. At these power levels you're better off having a cheap 20 or 50% miss chance through spells or magic items.
As I feel it's unreasonable for non-melee characters (especially casters) to be expected to spend 75%+ of their personal wealth to protect themselves strictly from physically damaging attacks it's nearly worthless to them. However monsters don't routinely give these character types a "free pass" on physical damage attacks.