Is AC eventually irrelevent?

[Zurai]

Dissinger wrote:

So telling people they can't spend more than 25% of their wealth by level if they create a character at level 15

I never said any such thing.

[Dissinger]

Zurai wrote:

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.

Yes, you did.

EDIT: And before you snipe, you know damn well what I meant.

[meatrace]

@Zurai-sorry man I have to agree. Between "never going to be possible" and "waaaaaay past what is allowed" I was doing mental gymnastics trying to think what PF society or PFSRD rule you were talking about.

Dissinger is not the only one who was confused by your heavy implication.

However, let's move on shall we?

[Zurai]

Dissinger wrote:

Zurai wrote:

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.

Yes, you did.

The guidelines say no more than 25% should be spent on defensive magic items. Tejon's list goes up to around 60 or 70%, IIRC. How is that not way past the budget? I never stated it was a rule. I did state that you're never going to see a level 15 fighter in a serious game with that list of gear, and that a fighter starting a game at level 15 is dramatically exceeding the guidelines. Since the entire Wealth By Level system is only a guideline, it's more than a little dishonest to say that one part of it is as good as law but the rest should be ignored as worthless.

[Thalin]

Offhand I'd agree the defense to a lesser extent it is irrelevant, in the sense the cloak of displacement and high saves are far, far better buys for your money. Before there was a point... if you were a clumsy guy with no armor the opponents would power attack you for 30 or 40 and kill you much more quickly.

But being able to get ACs pushing 50+ is nothing to sneeze at; even the largest creatures will hit you less than 30% of the time.

Also, GMA is an hours per level buff that can give +3 to armor for a "low" (at that point) level spell, someone in the party should be willing to help with that.

So it's not irrelevant, but it is all-or-nothing.

[Mylon]

I think this is part of the brokenness of monsters.

Monsters really ought to follow the BAB + BAB-5 + BAB-10 etc rules that players do for attacks. The basic idea is the first attack is supposed to hit. Subsequent attacks are less likely, and this is why you boost your AC. Not to stop that first attack from landing, but to stop the other ones from being guarantees as well. Plus, this keeps monsters on a more even footing with players.

[A Man In Black]

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

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.

But spellcasters do "sort of" double their damage around level 11, from Quicken Spell.

I'm not criticizing the -5 initial iterative quite so much, but the -10 and -15 iteratives are not significant sources of extra damage at the levels at which they appear.

Zurai wrote:

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.

The archery fighter/balor case is a bad example. That character is propped up with three different abilities that give him extra full-BAB attacks. Such abilities wouldn't need to be patched in through feats and magic if third and fourth iteratives weren't so weak.

See what kind of damage that character would do if its attacks were, say, +20/+15/+15/+15.

[Sean K Reynolds]

A Man In Black wrote:

But spellcasters do "sort of" double their damage around level 11, from Quicken Spell.

Only if they're attacking with their weakest (and thus quickenable) spells.

Ftr11's main attack does X damage. If he hits twice, he does 2X damage.
Wiz11's main attack does Y damage (from a 6th-level spell). He can do a quickened attack in that same round that does Z damage (from a quickened 2nd-level spell), thus his total damage is Y+Z, which is not the same as (and certainly less than) 2Y.

And the Ftr11 can do that every single round; the Wiz11 can do the Y+Z once per day (because Wiz11 only has two 6th-level slots, and he just cast them both in one round).

Now, Y is probably significantly more than X (Y is probably a multi-dice area attack spell compared to the fighter's single-die weapon attack plus bonuses), but the Ftr can keep doing X over and over and over again even after the Wiz has expended all of his magic.

[A Man In Black]

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Only if they're attacking with their weakest (and thus quickenable) spells.

Ftr11's main attack does X damage. If he hits twice, he does 2X damage.
Wiz11's main attack does Y damage (from a 6th-level spell). He can do a quickened attack in that same round that does Z damage (from a quickened 2nd-level spell), thus his total damage is Y+Z, which is not the same as (and certainly less than) 2Y.

And the Ftr11 can do that every single round; the Wiz11 can do the Y+Z once per day (because Wiz11 only has two 6th-level slots, and he just cast them both in one round).

Now, Y is probably significantly more than X (Y is probably a multi-dice area attack spell compared to the fighter's single-die weapon attack plus bonuses), but the Ftr can keep doing X over and over and over again even after the Wiz has expended all of his magic.

The fighter isn't doing 2X damage, on average, that's my point. The fighter is doing (%hit)X + (hit%-.25)X + (hit%-.5)X damage.

The wizard isn't casting a sixth-level spell to do Y damage; in the unlikely case that this is a problem that can be solved with blasting he's casting a low-level spell and a quickened low-level spell, since there's practically no difference between low-level blasts and high-level blasts except for the damage cap (which he barely notices at the moment). Using 13th level (which is the first level with AOE blasts you'd want to use that you can quicken), the wizard is doing 10d6 damage + 10d6 damage, which he can do for half the day. (Are there going to be more than half the fights in one day as AOE fights?)

A more practical comparison is the spellcaster casting, say, Glitterdust twice, since if it's a foe that the fighter can kill with X damage then it's probably a foe that can't make a DC 19-ish will save. CR 7 foes tend to have will saves in the +4 to +10 range, which will take 75% or more of a swarm of enemies.

What's more, this Y+Z scales with level naturally as spells get better, while the fighter is going to be less and less capable of taking out CR (ECL-4) enemies with a single blow, and -15 to hit becomes more of an issue than -5 to hit was.

Fighting classes aren't hitting multiple foes with their iteratives because they can't afford to, and the later iteratives aren't hitting anyone. That's the problem.

[stuart haffenden]

Dork Lord wrote:

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?

AC can help "sometimes", but at high level a good Saving Throw bonus will save you more often than the AC will.

However, Monsters with True Seeing do kinda negate some expensive equipment like the Displacement Cloaks etc.

[xiN.]

tejón wrote:

Quandary wrote:

"as early as level 15."

:-)

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!

You forgot about defending weapon. Put spikes on that full plate and make them +1 Defending. Then cast greater magic weapon on it. Or just make it +5 Defending.

Also it stacks with all AC

[Zurai]

A Man In Black wrote:

The archery fighter/balor case is a bad example. That character is propped up with three different abilities that give him extra full-BAB attacks. Such abilities wouldn't need to be patched in through feats and magic if third and fourth iteratives weren't so weak.

See what kind of damage that character would do if its attacks were, say, +20/+15/+15/+15.

I'm reasonably certain I can build a fighter that can two-round a balor with any wield style (dual wield, two-handed weapon, archery obviously, and even sword-and-board if it's allowed to use the shield bash type feats), just speaking from damage terms. Obviously melee fighters would have a hard time getting in melee range of such a mobile combatant as a balor.

[A Man In Black]

Zurai wrote:

I'm reasonably certain I can build a fighter that can two-round a balor with any wield style (dual wield, two-handed weapon, archery obviously, and even sword-and-board if it's allowed to use the shield bash type feats), just speaking from damage terms. Obviously melee fighters would have a hard time getting in melee range of such a mobile combatant as a balor.

Look at how many of those styles rely on feats that give you additional high-BAB attacks. If making many attacks is supposed to be an inherent quality of high-level, high-BAB characters (and the fact that every fighting style but 2h includes extra attacks suggests this), then why does this need to be patched on with feats and spells and magic items? Why isn't it an inherent quality of high BAB?

I'm not suggesting that you bring up iterative attacks while making no other changes; I'm suggesting that the third and fourth iterative attacks are weak, especially for high-level class abilities. They're nothing to get excited about.

Why is the special class ability that full-BAB classes get at level 11 and 16 less exciting than the Rapid Shot feat?

[Zurai]

I see what you're saying, now. Yes, archery and dual-wield fighting styles do rely heavily on full-BAB attacks. I wouldn't term iterative attacks "class abilities", per se, but I do appreciate your position in the matter.

[A Man In Black]

Continuing with the previous thought, what would be wrong with balancing monster AC around hitting with medium BAB, then making all iterative attacks at -5? That way, you're not trying to keep attacks at -10 and -15 relevant (which is a lost cause) or sell them as significant class abilities (which they are not).

Implications:

When a full-BAB class lays down only one attack, you usually hit, so your turn doesn't feel wasted, but all of the full-attack attacks feel relevant when you can make a full attack.

Medium-BAB classes are still on the RNG, and even if a medium-BAB class scrounges enough bonuses to make up the +5 to hit (e.g. clerics) they are still at a disadvantage to full-BAB classes because +20/+15/+15 isn't as good as +20/+15/+15/+15. (Contrast with the +20/+15/+10 vs. +20/+15/+10/+5 of 3e, which is barely a difference in most cases.)

Iterative attacks feel like significant upgrades, something high-level melee classes tend to lack. This is different from the mechanical advantage; it's important to make players feel like they are getting new and powerful abilities, and getting another chance to hit on a 18+ doesn't feel powerful.

High-level characters in 3e are already getting 3+ relevant attacks at high levels, from Haste (from spells or items), TWF, archery feats, etc. By disposing of the magic/feats that do this and making it an inherent quality of high BAB, it makes high BAB more important to being good at martial combat, so that spellcasters have a harder time overshadowing full-BAB classes at the full-BAB classes' specialty.

Medium-BAB classes are emotionally discouraged from focusing on melee, because they have more of a tendency to see nothing happen on their turn. (Take 4e and missing with your one attack a turn for an example of the effect this has on players.)

The rogue gets screwed, as a medium-BAB class that relies on multiattacks with martial attacks to do any sort of level-appropriate damage. Sneak Attack and rogue melee in general would need to be redesigned if you take multiattack feats/magic off the table and give full-BABers inherent multiattacks.

Another possibility would be to take a page from 2e's book and make multiattacks something like flurry, where +5 BAB can be turned into +3/+3 by any class, and +15 BAB can be turned into +13/+13/+13/+13 or suchlike.

Admittedly, it's a tad late to patch this into 3e, but it's worth a thought for anyone contemplating a (3+1)e that wasn't 4e. But armchair-quarterbacking the 3e development, there are a lot of possibilities for making AC relevant and iterative attacks relevant, as long as you don't try to make two attacks with three-quarters of the RNG between them relevant at the same time.

[tejón]

I must again point out that while, as a curiosity, I did demonstrate that a 15th-level character is within WBL with all that gear...

The actual numbers comparison was done against a CR 20 opponent. By level 20, that gear is chump change.

You can get down to 76.8k (25% WBL at 15) by switching to all +3 items, even keeping the +6 Dex. Now your AC is 42. That's still high enough that the very best attacks from level-appropriate enemies have a 50% chance to hit, and the vast majority are 25% or less.

Edit: A Man In Black, I really like those ideas.

[Misery]

The duelist used to be a potential AC god back before the change to give them armor and take away their AC bonus for ever level of duelist they had when fighting defensively at level 7 and above (level 7 duelist that is).

Since the change I had to move my character to fighter/rogue/monk/duelist to make up for it since I enjoy the ability to fight without armor better.

In any case though, when you choose this style, or even the new duelist, you can stack your AC pretty high since you get an added bonus of your INT going to your AC as well. If you fight defensively you take a -4 to hit (core, if not including outside materials) and gain a +6 to your armor class (+3 from the class, +4 for normally fighting defensively with a high enough acrobatics).

The reason I prefer unarmored besides the coolness factor is that bracers of armor +8 do two things for you 1) Cheap way to get a lot of AC and 2)It also holds up against touch attacks. So basically your touch AC is the same as your normal ac since everything about it is dodge/deflection stuff (though natural armor amulets I'm not sure on right now).

If you pick up the monk path as well you also get the whole Wisdom bonus to AC if you pick up wisdom enhancing items, and the ki pool ability to increase your dodge AC by +4 for a round for a number of rounds depending on your monk level.

I guess long story short is that you CAN make it so armor still matters very much so at least with the duelist class. Plus you have good damage output thanks to precise strike and a high rapier crit range and some nice duelist abilities (like the ability to decrease their ac when you do land that crit) and using one of those lower attacks you have to try and parry a blow. Might not have a great chance of success but if they roll a 5 to hit you and you roll a 17, thats one MORE less blow to land, also granting you a counter attack :D

Hurrayyyy duelists :D

[Mylon]

Fighter's iterative attacks certainly are relevant. With a +5 weapon, greater weapon focus for +2, +4 from weapon training, plus a host of other benefits I'm probably forgetting (bard songs, a quickened prayer, etc) a fighter can easily make those lower attack bonuses matter. Even moreso if minions are involved.

[Tim4488]

A Man in Black, Tejon, others:

I actually saw a Fighter class once that ended up with +20/+15/+15/+15. Struck me as overpowered, in part because it had several other ridiculously potent abilities and in part because it would be the only class with this ability, it wasn't a change to all bruiser types or anything like that. (We can argue until we die about Fighter v. Paladin v. Barbarian v. Ranger, but if Fighter gets that BAB and the rest get normal, it's absurd).

Now I'm wondering if it wouldn't be so bad if it were implemented as a larger scale change. Hard for me to say, though, I rarely get into high-level play. My groups tend to peter out some time before 10th.

[xiN.]

Misery wrote:

The reason I prefer unarmored besides the coolness factor is that bracers of armor +8 do two things for you 1) Cheap way to get a lot of AC and 2)It also holds up against touch attacks. So basically your touch AC is the same as your normal ac since everything about it is dodge/deflection stuff (though natural armor amulets I'm not sure on right now).

Natural armor and bracers of armor dont increase your touch AC.

[A Man In Black]

Tim4488 wrote:

I actually saw a Fighter class once that ended up with +20/+15/+15/+15. Struck me as overpowered, in part because it had several other ridiculously potent abilities and in part because it would be the only class with this ability, it wasn't a change to all bruiser types or anything like that. (We can argue until we die about Fighter v. Paladin v. Barbarian v. Ranger, but if Fighter gets that BAB and the rest get normal, it's absurd).

I'm familiar with the class in question, and it was part of a book that suggested you chuck the core melee classes entirely and give all classes a similar progression. (FWIW, the fighter from that book is a little unreasonable but the other melee classes, esp. the barbarian and monk, look overpowered but are surprisingly well-balanced.) As long as your power target is high (as in, well-optimized spellcaster with non-core material high), then this isn't an unreasonable change to make. It won't have much effect on your game until high levels.

[The Grandfather]

Dork Lord wrote:

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?

That is not true.

Epic levels do become very dangerous but a good AC ALWAYS help.

Items that grant concealment do have a tendency to become more and more important at high levels but a solid AC will go a long way to help you survive.
With your friends attitude he is probably right. If you do not make a serious attempt at building up a decent AC you will get hit a lot.

My most recent examples of 20+ level character are a wizard and rogue with ACs of 42 and 47 respectively. Most of this AC was actually built up at levels 15-18 but there is always room for improvement. With that kind of AC even tough mosnters often have a 50% chance to miss with even their primary attacks.

The conclusion must be if you can avert over 50% of the hp damage through AC alone you are going a long way to outlast your enemies and at a considerable smaller cast in resources to the parties cleric.

However I do think hp are extremely important and think every character in the game should do their best to boost Constitution. The above mentioned wizard complemented his AC 42 with a net 246 hp at 21st level.

[xiN.]

The Grandfather wrote:

However I do think hp are extremely important and think every character in the game should do thir best to boost Constitution. The above mentioned wizard complemented his AC 42 with a net 246 hp at 21st level.

The most important thing to take from this thread!

AC is always going to be helpful, but you can get a couple of unlucky rolls and die. So make sure you have a HUGE Constitution.

I know people tend to leave Con at 10/12 since its more fun dealing damage or increasing your class's stat, but it really is extremely important to have lots of hitpoints.

[Thalin]

I think this whole conversation is hiding the truth in Pathfinder, and all versions of DND.

The game breaks around/about 12th level. Not just the magic; monsters are forced to have auto-hits and insane attacks because the PCs will, especially buffed. NPCs are usually on the defensive; which is far more of a disadvantage at high levels. The number crunching goes extreme, and the game stops being fun.

That's why PFS stops at level 12. That's why evaluating classes should be done at the sweet spot levels of 5 to 12. Level 20 builds are largely ignorable, you think "Yeah, another degenerate guy who can solo the Tarrasque"

[Sean K Reynolds]

A Man In Black wrote:

The fighter isn't doing 2X damage, on average, that's my point. The fighter is doing (%hit)X + (hit%-.25)X + (hit%-.5)X damage.

And I think you're being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative. You know in my previous post I said the fighter was doing double* (*but not really double) damage.

A Man In Black wrote:

The wizard isn't casting a sixth-level spell to do Y damage; in the unlikely case that this is a problem that can be solved with blasting he's casting a low-level spell and a quickened low-level spell, since there's practically no difference between low-level blasts and high-level blasts except for the damage cap (which he barely notices at the moment). Using 13th level (which is the first level with AOE blasts you'd want to use that you can quicken), the wizard is doing 10d6 damage + 10d6 damage, which he can do for half the day. (Are there going to be more than half the fights in one day as AOE fights?)

And now you're changing the parameters of the discussion. You had used level 11 in your previous example, so I was discussing level 11. Now you're using level 13 in your example and talking as if I hadn't considered what happens when you can fireball-quickened fireball.

So I'm done talking to you about this.

[meatrace]

So this conversation has changed from simply how useless is/isn't AC to a discussion of some of the basic problems of 3rd edition as a whole. The problems I'm referring to are the following:

1)Warrior-types are meant to scale with Base Attack Bonus or more specifically iterative attacks derived thereof. As we have examined a well geared fighter nearly auto hits a level-appropriate challenge on the first hit, probably has a decent chance of hitting on the second attack, and then might as well stop rolling unless he's fishing for nat 20s.
My Solution-Monster AC needs to be based on the idea of a fighter hitting on first and second attacks (i.e. target AC based on his second iterative attack) giving medium-BAB classes a decent chance of hitting once.

2)Differing mechanics for physical and magical damage mitigation. Touch Attacks/Ranged Touch Attacks aside the mechanics for mitigating spell effects/spell damage is completely different, based on different stats, and scales entirely differently than AC/BAB. Damaging spells scale automatically based on the caster, but their ability to succeed does not (i.e. you are "targetting" your opponent's save) SR aside. Spell damage ends up being very bursty and varied, a good roll with a failed save (5d6 fireball) can hit 10 targets for 30 dmg apiece, but a bad damage roll and a made save can hit one target for 3 damage.

3)Action budget of different classes. Casters get one spell until quicken and then they get one spell and one much lower level likely utility spell at the cost of a high level slot. Archetypes like the rogue and archer base a significant portion of their damage on skirting the iterative attack structure, but usually do poor damage in situations where they can't set up a full attack routine.

These are problems that, for better or worse, 4e found a solution for. I don't like their solutions but there it is.

The way I would solve these problems would be a d6-type system for those who are fimiliar, where you have an action budget and the more actions you take the worse you are at each of them. That would even out casters, allowing them to, say, cast a 5th level spell OR two 2nd level spells. Warriors could consolidate all their pool for one attack or a number of poor attacks against mooks. Personally I don't think this would be a difficult system to implement/houserule for even a PF game, but it is quite different than stock d20 attitudes.

[A Man In Black]

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

And I think you're being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative. You know in my previous post I said the fighter was doing double* (*but not really double) damage.

And now you're changing the parameters of the discussion. You had used level 11 in your previous example, so I was discussing level 11. Now you're using level 13 in your example and talking as if I hadn't considered what happens when you can fireball-quickened fireball.

So I'm done talking to you about this.

But not getting double damage is the entire point. Fighters aren't getting double damage from iterative attacks; in fact, they're getting single-digit percentage DPR increases from their last iterative at high levels. Trying to make the -10 and -15 iteratives relevant has rendered rolling to hit on your best attack near-moot and it still doesn't make those iteratives significant. In fact, the only way the damage would be approaching double is if the fighter needed an 18+ or 19+ to hit with the first attack.

The only point with the spells is that spellcasters are already dealing off of the bottom of the deck to deal with mooks. The only time someone would cast a top-level spell and also quicken from that level is if it's an exceedingly hard fight, and in that exceedingly hard fight the fighter (or whatever full-BAB class) is going to need to focus all of his attacks on one target anyway. It's not a problem that's just peachy-keen at level 11 but suddenly appears at level 13.

I'm still not seeing how hounding me about Quicken Spell justifies building the entire AC balance around two attacks which are half or three-quarters of the RNG apart. It devalues high BAB, it devalues defensive strategies, and it overvalues trading off to-hit for extra damage. There's no sense making an imbalanced system in order to justify an unjustifiable mathematical spread.

[Quandary]

I liked how the OTHER (Beta) Vital Strike dropped (lowest) Iteratives for bonus dice on the rest.
I don't see why it couldn't have been combined with the Attack Action functionality in the final rules, since they apply in conflicting scenarios. It also helps the Iterative vs. Multi-Attack situation by not applying to Multi-Attack - Monsters CAN take it, but it only applies to Attack Actions (unless they use weapons/Iterative Unarmed). At any rate, it seems a decent and simple house-rule to address lowest Iteratives (i.e. not-worth-rolling-except-for-20s, in other words a mechanic dragging down gameplay at the very least)

Quote:

The way I would solve these problems would be a d6-type system for those who are fimiliar, where you have an action budget and the more actions you take the worse you are at each of them.

D6 is awesome. :-)

I think it got a bad rep in some quarters for (Force) 'balance issues' (one skill sub'ing for any and all others was slightly over the top - of course, it was supposed to be balanced by storyline and RP, not 1:1 class basis like D&D ).
I wonder how grafting a 'spell level' system onto it, where your "Power Skill" must have equal or more dice to the total "Spell Levels" you want to try that round, along with the normal 'each additional action subtacts 1 from each Skill/Power usage', would work? ...Maybe higher level Spells are actually already 'compound actions(spells)', meaning further actions already start out at a -2 penalty minmum...??? That would also set-up more of a "Saving Throw" like partial failure/sucess of "higher level" Powers requiring ALL successes for full effect, but partial success results in lesser effects. Hmm....

[Tequila Sunrise]

Dork Lord wrote:

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.

Unfortunately a lot of this depends on your DM. If your DM allows non-standard AC bonuses, then you can pretty easily jack your AC into the stratosphere. If your DM is like me and only allows armor/shield/deflection/natural, then yeah you will get hit all the time at high level.

But the point of AC at high level is NOT to avoid getting hit -- it's to prevent the dragon from turning his +30 BAB into 180 more damage via Power Attack. And that's where your friend's logic breaks down; because a high level low AC PC is just asking for a full Power Attack. Even if your DM is nice and neglects power attack for the first round because 'the dragon can't somehow estimate your defenses,' monsters and bored DMs tend to learn pretty quick.

[kyrt-ryder]

Tequila Sunrise wrote:

Dork Lord wrote:

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.

Unfortunately a lot of this depends on your DM. If your DM allows non-standard AC bonuses, then you can pretty easily jack your AC into the stratosphere. If your DM is like me and only allows armor/shield/deflection/natural, then yeah you will get hit all the time at high level.

But the point of AC at high level is NOT to avoid getting hit -- it's to prevent the dragon from turning his +30 BAB into 180 more damage via Power Attack. And that's where your friend's logic breaks down; because a high level low AC PC is just asking for a full Power Attack. Even if your DM is nice and neglects power attack for the first round because 'the dragon can't somehow estimate your defenses,' monsters and bored DMs tend to learn pretty quick.

The problem with that philosophy Tequila, is that power attack no longer works like that.

Either the dragon uses it (and he most likely will, given that the feat was designed for regular use by full BAB creatures), and deals a a bunch (but less potentially than 3.5, though the ratio is more favorable) more damage, or he doesn't use it.

"Baseline AC" as depicted by the usual gear and average class options doesn't have any impact on power attack in 90% of beatstick monsters anymore.

[Iczer]

Zurai wrote:

I'm reasonably certain I can build a fighter that can two-round a balor with any wield style (dual wield, two-handed weapon, archery obviously, and even sword-and-board if it's allowed to use the shield bash type feats), just speaking from damage terms. Obviously melee fighters would have a hard time getting in melee range of such a mobile combatant as a balor.

can you do it without magic assitance?

Batts

[Zurai]

Iczer wrote:

Zurai wrote:

I'm reasonably certain I can build a fighter that can two-round a balor with any wield style (dual wield, two-handed weapon, archery obviously, and even sword-and-board if it's allowed to use the shield bash type feats), just speaking from damage terms. Obviously melee fighters would have a hard time getting in melee range of such a mobile combatant as a balor.

can you do it without magic assitance?

Batts

Define "magic assistance". If you mean "without any external buffs", yes; I've already done that with the archer, thus the "obviously" above.

[Misery]

xiN. wrote:

Natural armor and bracers of armor dont increase your touch AC.

Pretty sure Bracers of Armor say they do. They give an armor bonus, true, but they function like Mage Armor where their AC given is based off of Force and thus still gives you it's touch attack bonus to ac.

[tejón]

Mage armor also does not give touch AC.

Force effects apply against incorporeal and ethereal attacks. Such attacks are otherwise touch attacks, yes. But just because the orange is a berry doesn't make all berries orange.

Yes, the orange really is a berry.

[Dreaming Warforged]

A Man In Black wrote:

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

And I think you're being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative. You know in my previous post I said the fighter was doing double* (*but not really double) damage.

But not getting double damage is the entire point. Fighters aren't getting double damage from iterative attacks; in fact, they're getting single-digit percentage DPR increases from their last iterative at high levels. Trying to make the -10 and -15 iteratives relevant has rendered rolling to hit on your best attack near-moot and it still doesn't make those iteratives significant. In fact, the only way the damage would be approaching double is if the fighter needed an 18+ or 19+ to hit with the first attack.

Actually, when I was doing damage output simulations during the playtests, one thing I noticed was that, for high level and good BAB progression, the attack bonus was so high that it would often mean that the chance to hit was capped at 95 % (fail on a 1). My tests were done at level 15.

This had two effects: the first was that the secondary attack percentage was higher than 70 % (sometimes 90 or 95 % !), and the tertiary was also higher for the same reasons.

The second was the impact on crit confirmation. The percentage of crit confirmation was also way higher in the stats, which meant a higher damage output on the first attack, while the +4 to confirm from the feat meant the second attack had still a fair chance to also confirm (especially when the real first attack percentage was actually 120 % capped at 95 %).

Put those two together, mitigated by the use of Power attack, which lowers percentages mostly for secondary and tertiary attack since they're not capped, and you get a damage output that is closer to twice the damage, or better even. So I would go with Sean on that one.

Regards,

DW

[A Man In Black]

Dreaming Warforged wrote:

Actually, when I was doing damage output simulations during the playtests, one thing I noticed was that, for high level and good BAB progression, the attack bonus was so high that it would often mean that the chance to hit was capped at 95 % (fail on a 1). My tests were done at level 15.

Sean's point was that damage was doubling at level 11, presumably because of the third attack. My point was that that's not doubling damage, not even close.

Do damage calculations for +X/+(X-5) and +X/+(X-5)/+(X-10) to see what I mean.

[Tequila Sunrise]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Tequila Sunrise wrote:

Dork Lord wrote:

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.

Unfortunately a lot of this depends on your DM. If your DM allows non-standard AC bonuses, then you can pretty easily jack your AC into the stratosphere. If your DM is like me and only allows armor/shield/deflection/natural, then yeah you will get hit all the time at high level.

But the point of AC at high level is NOT to avoid getting hit -- it's to prevent the dragon from turning his +30 BAB into 180 more damage via Power Attack. And that's where your friend's logic breaks down; because a high level low AC PC is just asking for a full Power Attack. Even if your DM is nice and neglects power attack for the first round because 'the dragon can't somehow estimate your defenses,' monsters and bored DMs tend to learn pretty quick.

The problem with that philosophy Tequila, is that power attack no longer works like that.

Either the dragon uses it (and he most likely will, given that the feat was designed for regular use by full BAB creatures), and deals a a bunch (but less potentially than 3.5, though the ratio is more favorable) more damage, or he doesn't use it.

"Baseline AC" as depicted by the usual gear and average class options doesn't have any impact on power attack in 90% of beatstick monsters anymore.

Wow, my bad.

Fix one feat, break half the game. That's 3e for ya.

[Rhubarb]

here's a monkey wrench, i like to use the alternate rule of removing the base 10 to AC and replace with a d20 roll. so my characters all roll their init and ac every round (as do monsters). it only works at levels 7 or higher. thus making ac bonus important and giving the players a feeling (and a chance) that they can hit any monster in front of them.

[DeathQuaker]

I can only comment as a GM who is running a campaign with a 17th level party. ACs run somewhere from the mid-high 20s to mid 30s. The party is strong, though not necessarily optimized; likewise I try to challenge them but don't uber buff the monsters. I would say 50% of what I throw at them has to roll well to hit them. That's possibly even too much. The other 50% do hit them easily, though tend to be the kind of creatures that the party then uses different tactics/resources on. At least based on my level of frustration when my monsters have a run of continually missing the party, I would say that AC is doing its job even at high levels.

Of course at high levels there are lots of other factors to contend with as well, but AC certainly isn't "obsolete" based on my personal experience. Of course the tactics I use, monsters I choose, and the tactics the party uses may all vary widely compared with someone else's game, but I have a feeling being hard to hit isn't a bad thing regardless of level.

Of course one could opt to be the kind of character who just takes damage and keeps going, with a high hit die and Constitution and various other buffs, and that's viable--but I would say at high levels that's actually more likely to get you killed if something like a powerful outsider gets lucky with its hits.

[Bill Dunn]

meatrace wrote:

1)Warrior-types are meant to scale with Base Attack Bonus or more specifically iterative attacks derived thereof. As we have examined a well geared fighter nearly auto hits a level-appropriate challenge on the first hit, probably has a decent chance of hitting on the second attack, and then might as well stop rolling unless he's fishing for nat 20s.
My Solution-Monster AC needs to be based on the idea of a fighter hitting on first and second attacks (i.e. target AC based on his second iterative attack) giving medium-BAB classes a decent chance of hitting once.

Might as well come right out and saying that the AC of level-appropriate encounters is based on the medium BAB then rather than the best BAB progression. And I'd agree. Let the fighter types have a bit of extra attack bonus for Combat Expertise and Power Attack.

[Zurai]

A Man In Black wrote:

Dreaming Warforged wrote:

Actually, when I was doing damage output simulations during the playtests, one thing I noticed was that, for high level and good BAB progression, the attack bonus was so high that it would often mean that the chance to hit was capped at 95 % (fail on a 1). My tests were done at level 15.

Sean's point was that damage was doubling at level 11, presumably because of the third attack. My point was that that's not doubling damage, not even close.

Do damage calculations for +X/+(X-5) and +X/+(X-5)/+(X-10) to see what I mean.

No, that was very distinctly and explicitly not Sean's point.

Sean said that if iterative attacks were at full BAB, damage would double* at level 6, triple (from base, natch) at level 11, and so on.

(*not really but good enough for gubmint work)

[voska66]

AC is never irrelevant. Might seem like it in many encounters because you take it for granted when the DM just stops throwing stuff at you that has no chance of hitting you.

But really having no AC results in lower CR toadies suddenly becoming a threat and that increases the damage output of an encounter greatly. Higher CR enemies hitting with more of their additional attacks and applying Power Attack or Combat Effectiveness.

So you don't need to max out on AC but I'd avoid ignoring AC as that really leads to problems. I saw a Sorcerer do that when they went all offense. If they lost initiative they were dropped and even killed a few times.

[Dork Lord]

Do all monsters get Power Attack now? I so didn't notice that. O.O

[Xuttah]

Dork Lord wrote:

Do all monsters get Power Attack now? I so didn't notice that. O.O

Only the ones with rich parents.

[A Man In Black]

Zurai wrote:

No, that was very distinctly and explicitly not Sean's point.

Sean said that if iterative attacks were at full BAB, damage would double* at level 6, triple (from base, natch) at level 11, and so on.

(*not really but good enough for gubmint work)

Mm. Badly phrased on my part, then. My point was that increasing damage by 50% and 33% at levels 11 and 16, respectively, would be just fine.

[Iczer]

Zurai wrote:

Iczer wrote:

Zurai wrote:

I'm reasonably certain I can build a fighter that can two-round a balor with any wield style (dual wield, two-handed weapon, archery obviously, and even sword-and-board if it's allowed to use the shield bash type feats), just speaking from damage terms. Obviously melee fighters would have a hard time getting in melee range of such a mobile combatant as a balor.

can you do it without magic assitance?

Batts

Define "magic assistance". If you mean "without any external buffs", yes; I've already done that with the archer, thus the "obviously" above.

so, no magic arms, armour, or other magic equipment?

Batts

[Dissinger]

Iczer wrote:

Zurai wrote:

Iczer wrote:

Zurai wrote:

I'm reasonably certain I can build a fighter that can two-round a balor with any wield style (dual wield, two-handed weapon, archery obviously, and even sword-and-board if it's allowed to use the shield bash type feats), just speaking from damage terms. Obviously melee fighters would have a hard time getting in melee range of such a mobile combatant as a balor.

can you do it without magic assitance?

Batts

Define "magic assistance". If you mean "without any external buffs", yes; I've already done that with the archer, thus the "obviously" above.

so, no magic arms, armour, or other magic equipment?

Batts

By that token, no class can function after level 5 or so. By removing magic equipment (that a fighter can purchase without a party crafter) you are purposefully handicapping a class for the sole reason of being argumentative. That is no contest, of course the Balor would win against a fighter in mundane gear. Mundane gear isn't meant to carry you past level 5 when monsters start requiring actual enchantments r specific items to overcome DR or other such things.

So, why the heck are you trying to say using magic items is cheating?

[Dork Lord]

Ugh. Reminds me of a campaign a year or so ago where we were level 6-7 and the GM hadn't given us but maybe 2000 gold each (in a Ravenloft setting where we couldn't buy magic items) and the only magic item amongst the whole party was a +1 mace.