Is it better to be unhittable (harder to hit) or be able to take a hit (boats of HP). I think it is better to be unhittable, never getting hits means you don't need massive HP. Then again I also think you need to balance it out since you can only raise HP and AC at different rates.
Depends on the environment.
Fighting foes that swing for enough damage they threaten to one shot you? Better to be hard to hit, and buy as many rounds as you can.
Fighting foes that have multiple small attacks or hit very consistently? Better to have lots of HP, to soak up damage as long as possible.
Most games though? It's better to have an even balance of both.
Is it better to be unhittable (harder to hit) or be able to take a hit (boats of HP). I think it is better to be unhittable, never getting hits means you don't need massive HP. Then again I also think you need to balance it out since you can only raise HP and AC at different rates.
In my opinion as a DM, it would be pretty unfair for any monster to be "unhittable" OR have "infinite" HP, and as such, it would be unfair for any PC to be likewise kitted out. That said, I would also like to point out that there are at least 6 different facets to "defense" in Pathfinder. There's Touch AC, Flat Footed AC, Regular AC, Reflex, Fortitude, Will, and Spell Resistance. That's 7 I just listed, with the three AC categories having so much overlap that they're really more like two. In any event, even the most defensively minded Paladin, who'll generally have really high flat-footed and regular AC, high saves in all three categories, and might even have his smite thing going against the attacker, he's still going to take his lumps from touch attacks that don't allow a save against the damage as well as those spells that still do half their damage even when you MAKE your save, like Fireball, and any spell that doesn't allow a save.
If I'm making a PC intended for the "tank" role in combat, I want relatively high hit points (that is, I'd want my Fighter/Paladin's HP to be higher than any other PC in the group, assuming I'm the only "tank"). But I wouldn't ignore defense either. I think this is one of those places where you have to strike a balance, or rather, you want them BOTH to be as good as they can be. I would want such a PC to have at least a 12 in base Con at level 1, and probably at least a 12 in Dex, assuming he'll be wearing full plate at some point. If no full plate, I want MUCH higher Dex, at least 14, and probably higher Con as well. If he's going to be more of a Rogue type, then you can't do a whole lot about the fact that his Will and probably his Fort may never be really "unbeatable" and his HP won't be THE best, but his "dodgyness" will be awesome and he WON'T take half damage from those nasty Fireballs, and he'll likely get missed a lot by touch attacks. That said, I'd still want him to have a positive Con modifier. I think EVERY PC can benefit from a Con of 12 rather than 11. Not every PC can afford to put the build points there, but if you're a melee type, I think you need to do it, or else prioritize getting a belt of increased Con ASAP. Spellcasters can probably get away with a 10 in con, but I think you still want that belt even then. The only other belt option would the the Dex one, and then it comes down to your particular game scenario, DM tendencies, the campaign you're in, etc.
There's a school of thought from the 3e days that operates under the assumption that if you can't have a fantastically high AC you are better off putting your feats/abilities/equipment to use in other areas. Killing your opponents before they have the opportunity to hit you more than a few times, or buffing/debuffing to create the effect of having a high AC, etc.
That said, there are things that will always or nearly always hit, especially at higher levels. In my experience high AC doesn't make up for crappy saves, and a fighter's low Will save can be crippling at any level. I agree with FrinkiacVII that every class benefits from a positive Con mod. Come to think of it, I haven't played a character since 2nd ed. without a positive Con Mod, even if it's just +1.
Zo
|
IMHO it's better to have more HP. Doesn't matter how high your AC is, there are ways to take damage that involved REF and FORT... heck, maybe even WILL.
I'll use the barbarian as a prime example. Lots of HP, very little armor. Now that's not to say a fighter shouldn't wear plate, he should, but D&D is forgiving enough that a shield can be traded off for a good two hander or to dual wield.
My take:
No matter how "unhittable" you are, there are ways to damage you. AE spells, for example. Or touch attacks, catch you flatfooted, destroy the magic items that make you unhittable, etc.
When those things happen, if you have sacrificed your HP too much, then you'll be in real trouble.
On the other hand, if you have tons of HP, then it doesn't matter really what happens to you. Swords, fire, sneak attacks, whatever - it's all just HP.
You're likely more survivable if you go the HP route than you are if you go the "unhittable" route.
That said, there's always healing resources to consider. If your healer has to burn half of his daily spells after every battle restoring the 400 HP you lost because your AC is just 12 and nothing ever misses you, well, there's gonna come the time when your healer is out of healing and that's when the TPK happens.
So, "unhittable" means your precious healing resources can usually be conserved for the truly needy (rarely you), which makes everyone's lives much easier.
And finally, if by "unhittable" you mean totally and completely unhittable by anything - mega AC, mega Touch-AC, never surprised, Free Action, mega saves against everything, mega magic-resistance, mega energy-resistance, permanent invisibility, permanent invisible prismatic wall surrounding you, etc...
If that's what you mean, well, then that's the best way to go.
I agree with DM Blake.
You can have tons of AC be totally unhittable.. and then fireballs will kill you because you dumped your HP too much to get AC.
The biggest problem though is logic.
If you are really impossible to hit, monsters will find something more squishy to chew on.. like that rogue or wizard (or whatever). This is especially true of intelligent foes and even More true of organizes foes.
(going after an organization? expect them to figure out Tin Man should be Mind Controlled somehow rather than gone up against in melee, for example).
In the end you are really better off being "well rounded" than being super high hp or super high AC. At least, that is my opinion.
-S
Our "tank" (I really don't like this MMORPG term for a pathfinder game) is a frenzied berserker with about twice the hp of a monster os his level... and an AC below 20 at levels nearing 20...
He gets hit all the time, takes lots of damage, never dies, but can soak the party's healing in a couple hard encounters.
With a very high initiative, a titanic strength, buffs and a power attack on the face, one shot and massive cleave is all most ennemies get to see before they can retaliate though. No charge cheese allowed in game.
Our "tank" (I really don't like this MMORPG term for a pathfinder game) is a frenzied berserker with about twice the hp of a monster os his level... and an AC below 20 at levels nearing 20...
He gets hit all the time, takes lots of damage, never dies, but can soak the party's healing in a couple encounters.
Yeah, I hate those guys.
For those who ever played clerics on DDO: I got to where I would drop group any time we picked up a warforged barbarian with their inevitable 2h weapons. Those guys would run into battle like children with a video game (heck, that's what most of them probably were). Built with tons of HP, no AC, not evena a shield. They'd soak up all my healing, and we'd never reach even the nearest shrine. Waste of time to even adventure with them.
PNP D&D, especially Pathfinder, is much better than that, but there's still a huge disparity between a barbarian tank in medium armor and a 2H weapon and a fully armored fighter with a sword-n-board build. It makes a world of difference to the party's healer, which means a world of difference to the survivability of the entire party.
|
I've found it's almost impossible to make a character anywhere near 'unhittable'. I had a rogue who was extremely hard to hit and he got by in most fights but then when a creature was able to hit him he'd be down in a round or two and pretty much out of action for the rest of the fight because the creature could not only hit him but could kill him almost instantly.
I would suggest that it's more important to be able to kill things than to have a high AC or monstrous hit points.
I rank AC over HP.
1.) Miss Chance - your best defense since it will affect enemies with high to-hit and low to-hit alike
2.) Armor Class - better to avoid the hit than try to absorb it. AC applies to EVERY melee/ranged attacks.
3.) Damage Reduction - once you're hit, taking less to no damage is nice, but this defense is hard to come by.
4.) Hit Points - no one is untouchable, and you will be hit. However, HP only matter IF you get hit which is a smaller percent than attacks against you. You need to be able to survive that lucky-as-all-get-out crit that should have never succeeded statistically.
5.) Fast Healing - nice in theory, but too slow since it only happens once a round. DR is on every hit. This is also hard to come by.
I've found that the best strategy involves getting a little bit of everything. So, if you're a barbarian, try picking up a Cloak of Displacement. If you're a caster, take Toughness. Etc.
Honestly, both are important, but its more important to be able to hit back. A frontliner is of no use if he's not a threat. I once had a player with a gnome knight who went all out to give himself an insane AC and he had good hp. But he did almost no damage (1d6-1 i believe). So after a round or two enemies would simple ignore him (assuming some level of intelligence).
Hard to hit doesn´t have to mean AC. Miss chance stacking works wonders too.
I agree; being unhittable is great, but AC is overrated.
Real "unhittability" in my book would be something like etherealness (with the ability to affect non-ethereal targets somehow) or Magic Jar-ing into another body. In that case, hit points and AC would be a distant second place.
(Note: a lot of this is from WoW terminology, but it's still applicable here)
How long will my character stay alive? Let's call this amount of time Rounds Till/To Death (RTD).
For a front-line character that is constantly subject to melee/ranged attacks, I believe it is possible for attack avoidance to drastically improve survivability *on average*. But that avoidance is subject to mathematical probability. Damage spikes that occur because of unlucky rolls can render attack avoidance completely worthless. At that point, hit points become extremely important -- the more you have, the bigger your RTD becomes.
In D&D/PF, AC/saves are forms of attack avoidance. I'm going to call energy/physical damage reduction a form of attack mitigation. Added hit points also decrease the percentage of life lost on each attack at a set damage amount -- so they're a form of attack mitigation.
Thus, the real question is: what distribution of attack mitigation do you want versus attack avoidance? That's a pretty interesting question. At first, it would seem like a solid balance between the two would be ideal. However, is it cheaper to get a large amount of avoidance versus a large amount of mitigation? Are you going to fight numerous monsters or a single monster? Are you going to fight certain monster types that negate avoidance (high attack rolls, ignore miss chance, use touch AC instead of regular AC) -- or that heavily penalize mitigation (pierce DR, heavy damage)? That can change on a fight to fight basis.
The real power here is in flexibility -- not the biggest numbers. Being able to change your mitigation/avoidance numbers on the fly would be ideal. Being able to slap on more hit points or up your AC quite a bit on the fly is the real power. In this case, focusing on either avoidance or mitigation is probably not optimal.
Honestly, both are important, but its more important to be able to hit back. A frontliner is of no use if he's not a threat.
As has been discussed numerous times before, there is no written threat system in D&D/PF. It's up to each GM to determine how threat works. There are a few mechanics sprinkled through the game that can alter how a monster attacks a target -- but those are exceptions.
You're currently using damage output as a threat indicator. That's fine, but other GMs do things differently. Don't assume that if your character is doing the highest damage output she is always going to be the target attacked first. While that might be considered an optimal strategy for a monster, monsters aren't necessarily fighting optimally.
Right, intelligent undead will target a cleric first, Hobgoblins will kill elves over anyone else, etc.
"Drawing Aggro" is subject to GM whim in PF/DND.
Honestly, both are important, but its more important to be able to hit back. A frontliner is of no use if he's not a threat.As has been discussed numerous times before, there is no written threat system in D&D/PF. It's up to each GM to determine how threat works. There are a few mechanics sprinkled through the game that can alter how a monster attacks a target -- but those are exceptions.
You're currently using damage output as a threat indicator. That's fine, but other GMs do things differently. Don't assume that if your character is doing the highest damage output she is always going to be the target attacked first. While that might be considered an optimal strategy for a monster, monsters aren't necessarily fighting optimally.
I did say assuming some level of intelligence on the part of the enemies. And I am not saying he has to be the bigest threat, or do the most damage. I am saying he has to be an actual thread. I dont think of it in MMO terms where you get 'agro'. What i am thinking of, is if the gnome in the tin suite pokes me with a stick, and the archer in back hits me with 3 arrows, im going to ignore the gnome and go after the archer. You have to be enough of a threat to not be ignored.
Typically, you can strive for both goals as con and hit die are class controlled, and the rest is equipment. The only other factor is spells, and whether you need to multiclass, or prestige. That is where you may see some really faulty design factors come into play.
Is it better to be unhittable (harder to hit) or be able to take a hit (boats of HP). I think it is better to be unhittable, never getting hits means you don't need massive HP. Then again I also think you need to balance it out since you can only raise HP and AC at different rates.
If those two are the only choices then more HP are always better. Being unhittable means you won't get a lot of melee damage but frankly melee damage is not the only damage in the game. Spell, environmental and other types exist as well and even with super armor if you have few HP your dead.
The more HP you have the better you are. There will ALWAYS be a monster or monsters out there that CAN and WILL hit your AC. Even if only with a True Strike spell.
And your super AC will generally not save you from a spell or magic damage or a bad fall. Boat loads of hits will.
That said, boat loads of hits can go down fast with level inappropriate defenses.
But if I was forced to choose only one or the other then I would go with the more HP.
What people I think are forgetting is that you automatically get HP at every level, but your AC doesn't automatically go up. Yes, absolutely take toughness and get a good Con score. Aside from those things there's not a lot you can do to get more HP.
The idea that AC doesn't scale as well as opponents hit is untrue, mainly because you have control over how much you spend on AC items. Right now my friend is playing a sword and shield fighter and his AC is 34 at level 8 with not much effort. Almost can't be hit and he still hits like a mack truck. Granted he spent most of his party treasure on his AC items, but since his shield is also a weapon it worked out.
A frontline character should aim for an AC hittable only on a 16 or so (20% chance to be hit) with a CR appropriate creature (monster creation table helps here) and let buffs and debuffs take you the rest of the way to nigh-unhittableness. For level 10 this target AC would be 34 and totally doable, even without a shield.
A backup combat character like rogue or bard, or a ranged character like an archer who might get attacked but tries not to "aggro" so to speak should aim for a number about 5 below this.
Usually for a caster or backline healer/buffer i.e. someone who tries his dangedest not to get in the thick of things I wouldn't even bother. Do the best you can and count on miss chance through invis or cloak of displacement.
Rule of thumb is that while your AC may get better periodically, as you go up levels you'll encounter foes with such a high bonus to attacks that they'll punch right through your high AC without a sweat for your relevant CR or slightly higher.
HP is always handy, being able to absorb damage determines how long you can focus on attacking the enemy with attacks and spells, etc. Having low HP and sustaining a hit that puts you dangerously low in HP forces you to back off and spend rounds healing yourself up (assuming you can of course with potions or whatever).
High AC is good versus alot of rank and file bad guys, but the rule of thumb is the bigger something is than you the more likely it'll punch through your AC (frequently due to their high STR and decent BAB's).
But you can augment your AC in different ways, armor and shields are always the most simpliest, then deflection, natural armor etc.
Monks in particular can have very good AC, Dex and Wisdom to AC (an item that enhances these stats gives more AC), Dodge Bonuses to AC, Bracers Of Armor, natural armor bonus from items, Deflection bonuses from Rings Of Protection, etc.
The typical 'tank' should aim to have as good HP as possible but also strive to have a good AC too, your Touch AC is likely your achillies heel however but this too you can do something about (deflection bonus to AC, and if your GM allows it, two Augment Crystals from the Magic Item Compendium 3.5 book, which if you have both the armor and shield at +1 enchancement, you could take the Lesser Screening Crystal for Armor for +1500GP to give incorporeal touch attacks (most ghostly undead) a -5 penalty to hit you, and a Lesser Deflection Crystal for +1500GP for the shield which gives ALL ranged attacks made against you a -3 to hit (which is almost +3 AC))
Failing that, if you can afford to, go down the Defensive Fighting route and take Combat Expertise (I think its called), to allow you to switch some BAB to AC as a dodge bonus on a full attack, though having a good Acrobatics will give you a bigger bonus to AC on Defensive Fighting like it did in 3.X I am sure.