I'm trying to decide if taking the stalwart feat is worthwhile. By itself having crane style up for a +4 dodge to AC seems good enough but I'm wondering if having that changed to DR 4/- would be better. Opinions?
Really it kinda depends upon your level, GM, campaign, party, and the rest of the party.
Does your group have another tank-ish guy that is going for a high AC? If so, you might want the DR instead so you can tank the things that always hit no matter the AC. And flip side.
Does you GM like a single muscle bound bruiser enemy but he doesn't really optimize the gear and feats? If so, the +4 to AC might stop most of the hits getting to your precious meat bag.
Does you GM like hoards of kobolds attacking in mass waves? They are probably only going to hit on a 20 anyway, so the +4 to AC doesn't do you any good. The DR 4/- will absorb almost all of the hit damage of d6-1 anyway.
Are talking about high levels with well optimized and equipped melee or archer opponents? They are going to hit most of the time unless your have really specialized in the maximum AC possible. Then the DR 4/- does better.
It depends on how easy you are to hit and how much damage enemies do when they hit.
The DR 4/- reduces expected damage per attack by a flat 4.
And the +4 AC reduces the amount of damage per attack you expect to take by an amount depending on what your opponent needs to hit you: The higher he needs to roll to hit you, the better the reduction is.
Example: if he needed 11 to hit before he now needs 15, reducing the expected damage by 40%: or in a short form: 11->15 : -40% - (10)
the number in () is the (just about) expected damage(integer) per attack where the AC bonus equals or surpasses DR 4/-
20->20 : -0% (-) can't crit
19->20 : -50% (8) can't crit
18->20 : -66% (6) can't crit
17->20 : -75% (5) can't crit
16->20 : -80% (5)
15->19 : -66% (6)
14->18 : -57% (7)
13->17 : -50% (8)
12->16 : -44% (9)
11->15 : -40% (10)
10->14 : -36% (12)
09->13 : -33% (12)
08->12 : -31% (13)
07->11 : -29% (14)
06->10 : -27% (15)
05->09 : -25% (16)
04->08 : -23% (17)
03->07 : -22% (19)
02->06 : -21% (20)
So if your foe has a higher expected damage per attack than the number in parentheses for the entry of his average to-hit-you number, you want the AC bonus. (not what I expected :S)
Very important: This is a simple comparison, AND I might be wrong :) in fact; I'm doubting my conclusion - I may have read my "table" wrong.
EDIT to add:
the AC bonus also protects from smiting, energy attacks and energy touch attacks, including spells with attack roll - DR doesn't. So AC might really be the way to go.
|
It's almost certainly worth it. Especially since, @ 11, he can Improved Stalwart for 8/-.
The feat is quite good if you have all of the prereqs. The other key to remember is that he doesn't have to NOT have the AC; vs energy attacks, spell attacks etc he can choose the armor instead:
While using the total defense action, fighting defensively action, or Combat Expertise, <b>you can</b> forgo the dodge bonus to AC you would...
So if you are something that had to take Diehard/Endurance anyway (Stalwart Defender?) and took Crane Style to make the "Ultimate defense monster (tm), then yes, Stalwart is worth it.
But it's probably not worth dedicating 5 feats to defense; otherwise you'll be useless offensively (more than likely).
Its really all about damage in versus damage avoided.
Each face of the mighty dodecahedron represents a 5% shift.
+4 AC reduces damage taken by 20% (because you are 20% less likely to be hit)
DR 4/- reduces damage taken by a flat 4
So the two options are equal when the average damage you take per hit is equal to 20.
If you take more than that in average, then the ac is better.
But if you peruse the beastiary, you will find that dmg per hit is usually less than this. So dr tends to be far better. If you take stalwart, you are also going to take improved stalwart asap, and this makes the comparison much easier. With improved DR always wins. Without it DR almost always wins. (The Ac has the advantage of helping CMD and preventing rider effects but it worse for pure damage)
The real question is, is stalwart worth the feat investment.
It certainly can be and there are a few shortcuts (like 1 lvl dip into unbreakable fighter)
Some builds can also stack this DR with bolstered resilience and fatigue immunity to get DR 20 once each round. Crane style stalwart martial artist monk is a good example.
|
|
You could always do the "forget AC, I'm DR!" build.
Human Invulnerable Rager 10 / Unarmed Fighter 1
Str 22 (26)
Int 7
Wis 12
Dex 7
Con 16
Chr 7
IR 1: Diehard, Endurance
UF 1: Crane Style
IR 2: Stalwart
IR 4: Power Attack
IR 6: Furious Focus probably
IR 8: Vital Strike
IR 10: Improved Stalwart, retrains a Furious Focus for Greater Vital Strike
Solid Damage and DR 13/- (that might be improved by admentium armor).
You could always do the "forget AC, I'm DR!" build.
Human Invulnerable Rager 10 / Unarmed Fighter 1
Str 22 (26)
Int 7
Wis 12
Dex 7
Con 16
Chr 7IR 1: Diehard, Endurance
UF 1: Crane Style
IR 2: Stalwart
IR 4: Power Attack
IR 6: Furious Focus probably
IR 8: Vital Strike
IR 10: Improved Stalwart, retrains a Furious Focus for Greater Vital StrikeSolid Damage and DR 13/- (that might be improved by admentium armor).
Not a bad tank build, but incurring a -2 (or more) AC just to pump out an extra point of damage (or 2, depending upon weapon type) isn't really selling it.
On top of which, Vital Strike is a bad feat chain unless you're playing a Mythic game. Although Furious Focus synchronizes well with Vital Strike, it's just not worth it in comparison to damage versus Full Attacks. Furious Focus also could be ignored if we take the factor that the first hit should be nigh-automatic, even with Power Attack, though it is still a decent feat.
These extra feats that aren't really worthwhile could instead be taken for things like Extra Rage Power, where you can get abilities like Spell Sunder (could choose Improved Sunder as a feat for one of the other ones to work with this), or better yet; the Beast Totem line. Pounce on a Charge, getting all 4-5 attacks with a +2 increase? At the cost of a -2 AC (which the build as it stands, isn't really a penalty at all)? Easy hits and perfect combat maneuverability, while still maintaining the threat.
What class are you, if you are Martial Artist Monk the go for the Stalwart. After that grab the Bolster Resistance feat to double your DR. So you could have 16 DR/- at 11th and as Martial Artist Monk you are immune to fatigue. You can use this once per round as an immediate action at it last till you get hit then your DR drop to 8/-. Since you are immune to fatigue you can use this again next round.
+4 AC reduces damage taken by 20% (because you are 20% less likely to be hit)
Not quite, examples:
going from 25% hit chance to 5% is an 80% reduction in expected damage: 5 hits in 20 attacks compared to 1 hit in 20.going from 50% hit chance to 30% is a 40% reduction in expected damage: 10 hits in 20 attacks compared to 6 hits in 20.
The only problem with Bolstered Resilience is that you need DR from a class feature to qualify for it. Just having the stalwart feats is not enough.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Each face of the mighty dodecahedron represents a 5% shift.
Ahem. Icosahedron. But carry on.
While DR is nice and all, IMHO what really messes things up is the big hits. DR 4 is pretty lousy when you get hit for 80. Which can happen at around level 8-12 range of play quite easily, I would rather have the +4 AC and not get hit as often.
I am still torn even as I write this, however, in my campaign my players are already starting to figure out that the monsters all have a +hit so high that if they swing at you, they are going to hit. Scan the monsters by CR and you'll see this to be true.
It's true that DR 4 isn't much, but remember the only hitpoint that matters is your last one. If you get claw/claw/bitten but that 12 points you avoided keeps you alive even once, it's paid for itself forever. And I'd also look at it as how many times will your character get hit over his career? 10? 100? 500? That's potentially hundreds or even thousands of hit points that now someone isn't going to have to heal.
So, I'll vote take the DR...but both are solid options.
|
IMO, you give up too much with Stalwart. Diehard and endurance are not fantastic on their own, and that DR only works when you take specific actions. For example, if an enemy is shooting you ranged weapons from a distance the only way to get the DR would be through Total Defense...but then you are just sitting there as a pin cushion and you don't even get the AC boost.
Well you can always attack an open square to fight defensively
But yeah, it is a lot of feats. If you are going for stalwart defender or pain taster, then it is still probably a decent option.
DR 4 is worth 4 HP * hit probability, per attack. So, almost 4 points per attack, provided every enemy hits you on 2+.
+4 AC is worth 20% of the damage of every incoming attack - provided that it moves you 4 pips on the die.
DR 4 is worth 4 HP * hit probability, per attack. So, almost 4 points per attack, provided every enemy hits you on 2+.
+4 AC is worth 20% of the damage of every incoming attack - provided that it moves you 4 pips on the die.
As DonDuckie noted, that is not completely true.
The only time +4 to AC equals a 20% miss chance, so to speak, is if the enemy hits you on a 2+. If the enemy needs more than that, which is usually the case with fighters, it is more than 20% (and less, if the enemy has a to-hit bonus higher than the character's AC).
The fun thing about AC, is that a bonus to AC is better the higher your AC is.
For example, if the enemy needs a 6+ to hit (or 3-in-4), then a +4 to AC means that the chance to hit goes from 75% to 55%, a 27% increase in protection (similar to a 27% miss chance).
If the enemy need 11+ to hit (1-in-2), then the hit probability goes from 50% to 30%, a 40% increase in protection.
Which is best, DR 4/- or +4 AC, depends on what hard the average enemy hits, and what the average enemy to-hit vs. AC ratio is.
If the enemy hits for an average 10 points of damage, and needs a 11+ to hit, then they are about equal, with the AC edging out the DR because of crit confirmation. Any increase in the average damage, will be in favour of the AC boost, any increase in the AC will favour the AC boost, and any increase in the average enemy to-hit will favour the DR.
An increase in number of attacks favours the AC boost a little, again due to crit confirmation.
Edit: This doesn't take into consideration that dodge AC also works against stuff that DR doesn't.
AC is, from an optimization POW, an all-or-nothing kinda thing.
How about a DR24/- by level 20. Not my build but if you want DR this is your tank.
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B2m7-opqn6ZqNFdnSjQ2Y2V1V28/preview
.
Its nice to see that build still floating around though we definitely need to update it a little. I was just coming on here to post that the only really viable DR build I've seen is that Invulnerable Rager with the Unbreakable Fighter dip that we use.Philisophically, I tend to look at DR 3/- = +2 AC. I'm not sure if the numbers bear that out but its the guideline we use to determine relative value. Since we don't use critical confirmation rolls, high AC doesn't do near as much to stop the damage spike of critical hits.
For example, if the enemy needs a 6+ to hit (or 3-in-4), then a +4 to AC means that the chance to hit goes from 75% to 55%, a 27% increase in protection (similar to a 27% miss chance).
If the enemy need 11+ to hit (1-in-2), then the hit probability goes from 50% to 30%, a 40% increase in protection.
Yes and no.
Your example has the correct chances to hit. And that is correctly a 27 % reduction in the chance to hit. While you can use that to determine the decrease in DPR (following the normal limitations of DPR calculation), it cannot be interpreted as a miss chance.
To get a miss chance, you need to look at the miss percentages, which show a different picture.
With a to hit bonus of +9:
Against AC 11 = miss on 1 (5%)
Against AC 15 = miss on 5 or lower (25%)
Against AC 19 = miss on 9 or lower (45%)
Against AC 23 = miss on 13 or lower (65%)
Against AC 27 = miss on 17 or lower (85%)
Numerically speaking, this is an 20 % increase in miss chance for each +4 AC. And relatively speaking, the increase in chance to miss is more significant the lower AC you have (80% increase from AC 15 to 19, and 44 % increase from AC 19 to AC 23).
I am not saying this is a more correct approach to compare AC to DR. Yet both calculations are too narrow to provide a clean comparison.
Make a table.
On one side, put the % miss chance from AC, i.e. hits x in 20. On the other side, the 'other number', i.e. hits 20-x in 20.
Example: Hits on a 4. 1 in 5 misses / 4 in 5 hits.
Multiply the left side by the damage. 20 damage x 1 = on 5 swings you avoid 20 damage.
Multiply the right side by your DR. 4 DR x 4 = 16 damage avoided.
i.e. entirely avoiding one hit in 5 is better then taking 4 hits with DR.
As enemy damage goes DOWN, DR is nicer, because the value of a miss goes down, but DR stays static.
If we improve AC by 4, we go to missing 2 in 5/ hit 3 in 5.
We avoid 40 damage per 5 hits with AC, but only avoid 12 damage in 5 swings with DR.
AC is better.
I.e. unless you get some extremely impressive DR numbers that start taking away big chunks of damage, AC is always better.
DR is most effective at low levels when it takes away a large percentage of damage. At higher levels, you need at least 1 DR/level to stay in the race with AC, and even then it might not be enough...assuming your AC is viable.
i.e. unless you can get some extreme DR, you're better off with the AC.
==Aelryinth
For example, if the enemy needs a 6+ to hit (or 3-in-4), then a +4 to AC means that the chance to hit goes from 75% to 55%, a 27% increase in protection (similar to a 27% miss chance).
If the enemy need 11+ to hit (1-in-2), then the hit probability goes from 50% to 30%, a 40% increase in protection.Yes and no.
Your example has the correct chances to hit. And that is correctly a 27 % reduction in the chance to hit. While you can use that to determine the decrease in DPR (following the normal limitations of DPR calculation), it cannot be interpreted as a miss chance.
To get a miss chance, you need to look at the miss percentages, which show a different picture.
With a to hit bonus of +9:
Against AC 11 = miss on 1 (5%)
Against AC 15 = miss on 5 or lower (25%)
Against AC 19 = miss on 9 or lower (45%)
Against AC 23 = miss on 13 or lower (65%)
Against AC 27 = miss on 17 or lower (85%)Numerically speaking, this is an 20 % increase in miss chance for each +4 AC. And relatively speaking, the increase in chance to miss is more significant the lower AC you have (80% increase from AC 15 to 19, and 44 % increase from AC 19 to AC 23).
I am not saying this is a more correct approach to compare AC to DR. Yet both calculations are too narrow to provide a clean comparison.
No, just yes, because a numerical comparison is completely useless.
It could be that you misunderstood my use of "miss chance", I certainly didn't explain it. I meant the effect, as given by, for example, partial concealment, not the chance that the baddie will miss you with his attack.A miss chance effect comparison is useful here, because it is a good measuring stick in that both effects have a similar outcome.
A DR 4 is similar to a miss chance (the effect, not the chance that the baddie will miss you) of 20% if the attack does 20 points of damage.
To compare that to an AC boost of 4, you need to look at the relative boost in effectiveness, not the numerical increase. A relative effectiveness boost of 20% is about the same (technically better, but I'm not bothering with crits here), while a numerical boost of 20% says nothing about how much damage it will stop on average.
If you really have to choose between the two, go for the AC. In the long run it will negate FAR more damage. After all, what's DR 4/- when you're facing something that does ~50/attack? Better to negate the ENTIRE attack.
The fact that it's a dodge bonus and stacks with all other bonuses you could possibly put towards AC just makes it EVEN better.
Also, the notion that AC can't keep up at high levels is, as Mark Twin would put it, a damned lie.
|
I used to be a dex junkie, and, with my casters, always used to hungrily glaze over the belt of dex as a future purchase.
Then someone made me realise the wonders of con - lots and lots of hit points will keep you alive, a few extra AC down the track will not. Now I'm a con junkie. Toughness forever!!
Or in your case, DR.
Another thing to keep in mind is that a dodge bonus to AC works against touch attacks (from several spells and monster abilities), where DR in most cases would be worthless.
i.e. unless you can get some extreme DR, you're better off with the AC.==Aelryinth
.
How about some AC and some DR rather than leaning fully on one or the other?
|
|
Its a situational feat, stalwart. If you are a barbarian, it can be nice, since Barbar style is "take all the hits" not "don't get hit", but if you are a monk, then really high AC/Touch AC is your thing and you really can't take those hits. If you already have the (sucky) feat endurance, and the (situational) feat diehard, AND you have an open feat, then its nice. If you are being the party tank and have feats open (fighter much?), then its great. If you are feat-tight and MAD, don't bother. But if the situation is DR4/- or AC+4, I'm gonna say DR. Because if you have the DR, you can then have the AC the next round.
Quick math:
H = base hit probability (1/20, 2/20, etc.)
The break-even point, where +4 AC provides the same benefit as DR 4/- on total damage taken:
(H - 0.2) * D = H * (D - 4)
(D * H) - (0.2 * D) = (D * H) - 4H
- (0.2 * D) = - 4H
D = 20H
Basically, if the average damage per attack before DR is higher than the number of chances in 20 that would hit before either the +4 AC or DR 4/-, then the +4 AC reduces the total damage taken more than the DR 4/- (i.e., with a 25% hit chance, you're better off taking the +4 AC if the average damage per attack is more than 5). Conversely, if the average damage per attack is less than the number of chances in 20 that would hit, then the DR 4/- is better (i.e., with a 70% hit chance, an average damage per attack of less than 14 means you take less total damage with DR 4/-).
Note: This is a simplification, as AC actually provides more of a benefit when critical hits are calculated in by reducing the chance of confirmation. Also, if the hit chance is already at 20% or less, then +4 AC provides less of a benefit, since a natural 20 always hits.
Fantastic advice people, thank you! I think I will go with Stalwart after all. The feat says I 'can' go for the DR instead of the AC. Having both options will be good for flexibility. I can look at what we are fighting and decide if DR instead of AC is a better choice.