I would say, "optimization rewards offense over defense." Optimization creates a game where PCs are required to one-shot opponents to stay relevant. In this kind of game, initiative and offense is 100%, and defense is irreverent. The GM can easily optimize monsters for similar offensive capability, however, frequently killing characters through rocket-tag is generally considered not fun by players, and is typically very disruptive to a campaign. The default for Pathfinder is that the GM is supposed to lose almost every battle, and optimization requires that lose to be immediate.
Since PCs and monsters have access to most of the same stuff, Pathfinder rules balance offense and defense fairly well, however it is fairly easy to disrupt this balance (within the rules) and encounter design and pacing can have a huge effect. Sadly, even many published adventures feature many single monster encounters or other recipes for disruption.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The game does reward offense over defense. I believe this is intentional. High level combat ran by a poor GM and unprepared players can take upwards of 15 to 45 minutes per round. If combat is 60 rounds, you could end up in one boss fight for a whole years worth D&D/PF sessions.
Thus the game pushes towards offense to keep the game quick.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
enemies with 1 hp left are just as combat effective as enemies with full health
so yes
Actually the game rewards offense over defense. So if you want to be rewarded then you optimize more. The reason this is true was alluded to in your own post with the "single monster encounter". That monster is not generally going to provide the same challenge of a 3 monsters. Action economy says that generally the less actions an enemy has the less they can do. So by killing/disabling them more quickly you are able to make it more likely that you will survive. How do you kill/disable? You do it with offense.
I think Pathfinder does reward offense more, if only to keep combat relatively fast-paced. Not many players would enjoy having a skirmish against a couple goblins take several hours to play out because everyone was turtling up and impossible to hurt.
That said, I don't think defense ever becomes irrelevant. It's pretty hard to consistently end encounters before any of the enemies get a turn if the GM is throwing out encounters that are an appropriate challenge to the party.
I guess I'm thinking more about how PCs function and whether it is effective to invest in defense. For example, does it make sense to invest half your feats and equipment into defense, and the other half into offense, or should one invest 90% into offense?
enemies with 1 hp left are just as combat effective as enemies with full health
so yes
By that same logic, is a PC just as combat effective at 1hp?
Actually the game rewards offense over defense. So if you want to be rewarded then you optimize more. more..."
If it is optimized PCs fighting unoptimized monsters, I would agree. However, if the GM also optimizes, and uses the same philosophy, does that push the game into something people would want to play?
I guess I'm thinking more about how PCs function and whether it is effective to invest in defense. For example, does it make sense to invest half your feats and equipment into defense, and the other half into offense, or should one invest 90% into offense?
With the way equipment cost scales, you'll rapidly run into diminishing returns if you focus exclusively on offense, compared to what you'd get for mixing your gear up.
you are searching for numbers that are conditional
just
stay fit
keep sharp
make good decisions
focusing one way or the other to extremes will pretty much get your PC killed either way
too much offense, well I hope you like failing saves and taking a lot of damage
too much defense, well I hope you like long combats and dying the death of a thousand cuts
The math of PF (well, 3.0) was formulated so that at higher levels, offensive capabilities outpace defensive capabilities. Or another way to say it is that the rate of increases for attack bonuses will outpace the rate of increase for AC, so you are more likely to hit at higher levels. The reason for this is to speed up combat some, and not create stalemates at high level where you are constantly missing.
If I recall correctly, this starts happening around level 11 or 13.
So yes, PF favors offense or defense.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It rewards offense somewhat - but both offense & defense are set up to get diminishing returns the higher they go, so it's definitely beneficial to have a solid defense.
(Also - while offense is rewarded more for primary combatants, defense is rewarded more for secondary combatants/buffers. A combat bard doesn't have to dish out much damage directly to be doing their job, but they certainly shouldn't be too squishy.)
The math of PF (well, 3.0) was formulated so that at higher levels, offensive capabilities outpace defensive capabilities. Or another way to say it is that the rate of increases for attack bonuses will outpace the rate of increase for AC, so you are more likely to hit at higher levels. The reason for this is to speed up combat some, and not create stalemates at high level where you are constantly missing.
If I recall correctly, this starts happening around level 11 or 13.
So yes, PF favors offense or defense.
But at those levels there are so many ways to avoid full attacks and regain HP does it really matter? Can you really say the system favors X because of those numbers?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For example, take a look at the numbers found in the spoilers here, which is the average DPR of a CRB only non-optimized fighter. The numbers in the spoilers list the average monster's AC, based on the monster creation table found here.
At level 9, the difference between the average AC and the average to-hit bonus for using power attack all the time is 5. At level 11, it's 3. At level 15, it's 2.
At level 1, it's 8.
Heck, you can even just see it in the monster creation chart. Starting at level 5, in the next 15 levels AC increases by a total of 18, with the monster's average attack (for those meant to be attacking) increased by 20.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But at those levels there are so many ways to avoid full attacks and regain HP does it really matter? Can you really say the system favors X because of those numbers?The math of PF (well, 3.0) was formulated so that at higher levels, offensive capabilities outpace defensive capabilities. Or another way to say it is that the rate of increases for attack bonuses will outpace the rate of increase for AC, so you are more likely to hit at higher levels. The reason for this is to speed up combat some, and not create stalemates at high level where you are constantly missing.
If I recall correctly, this starts happening around level 11 or 13.
So yes, PF favors offense or defense.
Well, yes. I can just say that, since I just did :)
|
|
For example, take a look at the numbers found in the spoilers here, which is the average DPR of a CRB only non-optimized fighter. The numbers in the spoilers list the average monster's AC, based on the monster creation table found here.
At level 9, the difference between the average AC and the average to-hit bonus for using power attack all the time is 5. At level 11, it's 3. At level 15, it's 2.
At level 1, it's 8.
Heck, you can even just see it in the monster creation chart. Starting at level 5, in the next 15 levels AC increases by a total of 18, with the monster's average attack (for those meant to be attacking) increased by 20.
4 points
1 - That's against the primary attack. By 6 iteratives are an issue.
2 - I've always found that chart to be BS. It's mostly for monsters who are butt-naked. Considerly how much treasure most of them have - most should be wearing armor and/or having magical defenses.
3 - By middling levels AC isn't the only form of defense of monsters. They have miss chances (blur/displacement etc) and mirror images. All sorts of things which aren't purely AC.
4 - From a certain point of view - if they really are that easy to hit - then it's offense that you don't need to worry about much. After all - you can hit them without trying. You might as well have the whole party turtle up. (key being whole party - you can't have any extreme glass cannon weak-spots)
|
Mythic exemplified favouring offence vs defence, turning rocket tag into nuclear bomb tag. Outside of mythic, as a GM the only way I've been able to improve a foes defence in a meaningful way is with speed bump mooks that delay the PCs from engaging directly. I don't think this is good or bad, but it is an artifact of the system.
good stuff
But at first level, the fighter is almost guaranteed to one shot most opponents, but as time goes on, this becomes less and less true. Very interesting stuff to consider, but I'm still not convinced that you can extrapolate that the whole system favors offense because of these numbers alone.
I guess I'm thinking more about how PCs function and whether it is effective to invest in defense. For example, does it make sense to invest half your feats and equipment into defense, and the other half into offense, or should one invest 90% into offense?
Most people invest more into offense than defense(Armor class) since it wins fights. The defense I really pay attention to is saves, and if I am a caster miss chance.
Weapons and other offensive items cost more than armor so it is not likely that you will invest in defense equally.
enemies with 1 hp left are just as combat effective as enemies with full health
so yes
By that same logic, is a PC just as combat effective at 1hp?
Actually the game rewards offense over defense. So if you want to be rewarded then you optimize more. more..."If it is optimized PCs fighting unoptimized monsters, I would agree. However, if the GM also optimizes, and uses the same philosophy, does that push the game into something people would want to play?
Yes a PC at one hit point is just as effective, but he may die in the next round.
Well a GM can do any number of things to compensate, too many to even mention. It also depends on how far he pushes things. Some GM's make the game slightly harder. I know I do, but I don't push it into an arms race. Many people don't like the "competitor*" GM. However for the most part I let the players enjoy their optimization.
*Every fight will be difficult no matter what you do.
I would say so, yes.
I mean, just looking at the basics for characters (ignoring monsters for the time being), they get ever scaling attack bonuses in their BAB, but defenses do not scale at all.
Sure, you can get magic armor, but the bonuses you can get to armor are matched by the bonuses you can get on your weapons. +1 armor against a +1 weapon is break even.
A lvl 20 fighter is going to have that +20 BAB, while any character he's going up against only has the base armor he had by lvl 2-3. Every armor gain they can get through magic has a counter in magic weapons, but attacks keep scaling up while AC stays more or less stagnant.
A character that spends every single resource they've got can manage an effective defense... against an average Fighter.
By high levels, your defenses are more about stopping iterative attacks and secondary effects than it is anything else. Those first couple attacks are pretty much guaranteed to hit you, no matter what you do.
But at those levels there are so many ways to avoid full attacks and regain HP does it really matter? Can you really say the system favors X because of those numbers?The math of PF (well, 3.0) was formulated so that at higher levels, offensive capabilities outpace defensive capabilities. Or another way to say it is that the rate of increases for attack bonuses will outpace the rate of increase for AC, so you are more likely to hit at higher levels. The reason for this is to speed up combat some, and not create stalemates at high level where you are constantly missing.
If I recall correctly, this starts happening around level 11 or 13.
So yes, PF favors offense or defense.
Yes because you don't need full attacks, and there are ways to cut done on movement so people can't "run away". Also many of the bad guys also rely on full attacks to be more effective, but the PC's are normally going to be better at full attacking. Even if you trade single blows the offense is still going to be the focus. Single blows just delays the inevitable.
Also barring certain special builds healing is really not what you want to be focusing on. Most bad guys also don't have access to healing. Even many BBEG's don't have someone on hand to give them hit points or to remove status affects.
If they do have someone that does that, then the players are likely to focus fire and kill him so they can get back to the BBEG. However like I said non-BBEG fights are even less likely to have a healer. Yes, a GM could add healers, but from real life experience and many of the online forums it is not a common practice.
good stuffBut at first level, the fighter is almost guaranteed to one shot most opponents, but as time goes on, this becomes less and less true. Very interesting stuff to consider, but I'm still not convinced that you can extrapolate that the whole system favors offense because of these numbers alone.
Many CR equivalent or slightly higher enemies can one shot you at level 1 as well.
And yes, the game favors offense over defense. GEnerally speaking you will end up spending far fewer resources being somewhat more offensive minded than defensive minded.
Plus, there is only one guaranteed method to prevent damage. One. And that is not being in a position to get attackede from the start.
AC has a 5% chance of failing.
Miss chances usually have higher.
You always have 5% chance to fail a save.
This is not some fluke of math but implicit in its design. The idea is that encounters should not be big boring slog fests.
If you want a game where defense is explicit in the design than you look at Exalted. The idea behind exalted is that fights are meant to be long dramatic affairs where a fight between equals can be an exciting and cinematic thing ala Dragonball Z.
You'll notice too that optimization in Exalted goes a separate direction. Because defenses can be perfect the emphasis in optimization is about paranoia combos and perfect defenses never wasting essence and charms on offensive moves since you can kill an opponent with a single grand daiklave hit.
You'll notice too, that a character who invests in defense versus offense will require much more investment in terms of gold cost, feats needed, and character options required.
It is not. Armor bonus cost half of the other.
Sure, you can get magic armor, but the bonuses you can get to armor are matched by the bonuses you can get on your weapons. +1 armor against a +1 weapon is break even.
It still maxes out at +5 vs. +5, and gold limits are rarely actually an issue when it comes to that.
Even stacking shields in there, the BAB still outpaces the bonuses you can get to AC.
There aren't those items because attack bonus goes up automagically on its own at most levels.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It still maxes out at +5 vs. +5, and gold limits are rarely actually an issue when it comes to that.It is not. Armor bonus cost half of the other.
Sure, you can get magic armor, but the bonuses you can get to armor are matched by the bonuses you can get on your weapons. +1 armor against a +1 weapon is break even.
Except you are entirely ignoring that there are no offensive equivilents to Rings of Protection or Amulets of Nat Armor, and if you use a shield then you get it added on top.
Not to mention exceptions such as monks who get two stats to defense vs the offense one, and class bonuses on top.
Flawed argument is flawed.
(There are valid arguments that offense is superior. This is not one of them.)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Offense holds the balance of power, but not to the point that it is (usually) a good idea to throw your resources 100% in that direction, and in a way that changes significantly (sometimes even reversing) based on a number of factors such as your class, party composition, level, etc.
There are a lot of factors at play that haven't been mentioned yet here. For example: offensive investment rewards concentration more. If you are an archer who buys a magic bow, you'll be using that magic bow for the bulk of your offensive actions. If you buy a cloak of resistance, you can't force your enemy to attack your saves. Defensive investment tends to be diluted because you have to cover many bases (increasingly many as the party levels up) and can't control which defense your enemy is going to attack, offensive investment tends to be more concentrated because you choose which offense to employ.
On the other hand, it can become more difficult to score a "clean" victory with excessive offense at higher levels as well. With melee for example, charge a goblin, you can kill it before it does anything. Charge the iathavos, you're going to take AoOs, aura saves, cloak of chaos saves... etc. This is a factor that varies a whole lot based on, for example, whether you are a meleer or an archer or a spellcaster.
It's a complex brew, meaning that while a statement like "Pathfinder rewards offense over defense" is on balance true, it's not true for all the people or all the time.
Except you are entirely ignoring that there are no offensive equivilents to Rings of Protection or Amulets of Nat Armor, and if you use a shield then you get it added on top.
Attack:
+20 BAB+5 Magic Weapon
+X Stat
Defense:
+5 Magic Armor
+5 Magic Shield
+5 Natural Armor
+5 Deflection
+X Stat
Cancel out the stat scores, thats +25 to attack bonuses, and +20 to defense bonuses. Sure, your base armor and shield will typically be giving you more than the +5 to make up the gap, but it comes down to this.
That Fighter only had to spend gold on a +5 weapon. The defender just spent:
50k on deflection
25k on natural armor
25k on magic armor
25k on magic shield
--------------------
125k gold
Vs. the 50k the attacker spent on his +5 weapon. That bypasses all damage reduction.
The defender is having to spend nearly 3x as much of his item budget just to stay even with the attacker.
And really, there is no upper limit on how much Str bonus the attacker can pour into his attack bonus, but there is generally a limit to how much dex bonus the defender can use, so thats even more lopsided.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Defense actually increases faster then offense if you decide to put effort into it.
There are more ways to gain defense bonuses then attack bonuses.
The big ways of gaining attack bonuses are: BAB, Stat, magic Weapon, Class Features.
The big ways of gaining Defense are: nat armor, armor, shield, Stats, deflection, enhancement bonuses to nat armor, armor and shields.
A bog standard F/20 with BAB 20, +10 from 30 Str, +5 Weapon, and +6 Weapon Mastery is at +41. Of this, he's probably going to lose +6 for Power Attack, so he's really at +35.
The same fighter with full plate +5, Shield +5, Nat Armor +5, Dex+7, Deflect +5 is at a 47 AC. He can easily get it to 52 with Defender, 55 with Defensive fighting, and 61 with Expertise.
And we're not even talking displacement or other mischances, or polymorphs to gain more nat armor.
==Aelryinth
The same fighter with full plate +5, Shield +5, Nat Armor +5, Dex+7, Deflect +5 is at a 47 AC. He can easily get it to 52 with Defender, 55 with Defensive fighting, and 61 with Expertise.
And we're not even talking displacement or other mischances, or polymorphs to gain more nat armor.
How exactly is he getting +7 from his Dex while wearing full plate?
And why are you intentionally lowering the attacker's attack?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Except you are entirely ignoring that there are no offensive equivilents to Rings of Protection or Amulets of Nat Armor, and if you use a shield then you get it added on top.Attack:
+20 BAB
+5 Magic Weapon
+X StatDefense:
+5 Magic Armor
+5 Magic Shield
+5 Natural Armor
+5 Deflection
+X StatCancel out the stat scores, thats +25 to attack bonuses, and +20 to defense bonuses. Sure, your base armor and shield will typically be giving you more than the +5 to make up the gap, but it comes down to this.
That Fighter only had to spend gold on a +5 weapon. The defender just spent:
50k on deflection
25k on natural armor
25k on magic armor
25k on magic shield
--------------------
125k goldVs. the 50k the attacker spent on his +5 weapon. That bypasses all damage reduction.
The defender is having to spend nearly 3x as much of his item budget just to stay even with the attacker.
To be frank, we're talking level 20 stuff, and while people don't race to get +10 armor, they spread the AC out over many devices.
You left out the fact it's probably a +8 sword at the very least, at 128k. And it might be +10 at 200k.
Which means the fighter spent more on his sword then on ALL his defensive gear combined. Of course, a furious courageous +5 sword is likely worth it.
==Aelryinth
You left out the fact it's probably a +8 sword at the very least, at 128k. And it might be +10 at 200k.
I also left out that the defense items probably have more than straight plus bonuses to them as well.
Discussion was about attack bonuses vs. defense bonuses.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Defense actually increases faster then offense if you decide to put effort into it.
There are more ways to gain defense bonuses then attack bonuses.
The big ways of gaining attack bonuses are: BAB, Stat, magic Weapon, Class Features.
The big ways of gaining Defense are: nat armor, armor, shield, Stats, deflection, enhancement bonuses to nat armor, armor and shields.
A bog standard F/20 with BAB 20, +10 from 30 Str, +5 Weapon, and +6 Weapon Mastery is at +41. Of this, he's probably going to lose +6 for Power Attack, so he's really at +35.
The same fighter with full plate +5, Shield +5, Nat Armor +5, Dex+7, Deflect +5 is at a 47 AC. He can easily get it to 52 with Defender, 55 with Defensive fighting, and 61 with Expertise.
And we're not even talking displacement or other mischances, or polymorphs to gain more nat armor.==Aelryinth
Yeah, if you throw a lot of effort at your AC it can scale faster than attack bonuses - for most types of characters, not even just an armored fighter.
The flip side of that is that you're going to see a fair number of combats where all those resources the wizard or the archer or the two-hander threw at AC are not going to be that relevant, because it's Mind Flayer Day, or whatever. It's markedly rarer to be in a combat where the wizard's Int enhancer, or the pluses on the archer's bow, or whatever, aren't relevant.
The same fighter with full plate +5, Shield +5, Nat Armor +5, Dex+7, Deflect +5 is at a 47 AC. He can easily get it to 52 with Defender, 55 with Defensive fighting, and 61 with Expertise.
And we're not even talking displacement or other mischances, or polymorphs to gain more nat armor.How exactly is he getting +7 from his Dex while wearing full plate?
And why are you intentionally lowering the attacker's attack?
Um, we're talking a fighter.
Mithral plate armor with Armor training 4 is +7 Dex bonus. I'm not even using celestial armor.And why am I lowering his TH? Just because you think a 30 Str is low? I'm assuming WMastery +4 with gloves of dueling, no Weapon Spec. Bog standard. Str is 6 pts higher then Dex...5 pts by level and 1 pt at start.
BAB 20, +5 Weapon, +6 WM and +10 Str is +41. Am I doing addition wrong?
==Aelryinth
|
Attack scaling: BAB, class features, weapon enhancement, stat boost
Defense Scaling: Buy better base armor (hard to start with full plate), armor enhancement, natural armor enhancement, deflection bonus, stat boost
Most martial-heavy characters gain about +22-24 from BAB and class features, then +5 from weapon enhancement, and about +5 from stat growth (+6 enhancement to attack stat, +5 from level) => +28 (assuming power attack)
Defense: +2 (better base armor), +5 enhancement to armor, +5 natural armor enhancement, +5 deflection, +2 stat boost => +19 over base
That means that over the course of 19 levels the gap can go from 0 to 9 in favor of offense, shifting a 50/50 hit chance to a must-nat-1-to-fail.
Of course, if you want to twink out AC you can get another +9 from a +5 shield and a couple feats, which closes the gap between attack and defense and suddenly your foes are still at 50/50 on the first hit. With the right build and buffs you can easily push it much higher.
The question on defense is not "can I make it scale", it's "is it worth it". And the answer is typically "no", because it takes a lot more to cover all defensive bases than to cover one offensive base and kill them first. That said, it's still a good idea to put *some* into defense so you don't auto-lose if you fail to kill on round 1.
A defense-focused build can work, but it can't neglect offense any more than the offense-focused build can neglect defense. Being more offense-focused is certainly easier to build, though.
TL;DR - Offensive bonuses outscale defensive ones easily.. unless you take a shield, then they are similar. But that still doesn't mean defense is the optimal path to victory.
(NOTE: "Gains" are for what you get above and beyond a typical level 1 build when you get to level 20; level 1 is presumed to have cheap gear and have power attack.)
|
|
Cancel out the stat scores, thats +25 to attack bonuses, and +20 to defense bonuses. Sure, your base armor and shield will typically be giving you more than the +5 to make up the gap, but it comes down to this.
1. You can only include 17-18 BAB in your calculation - as you pointed out - you don't have full armor until level 2-3. If you include all 20, then you'd also need to include the base values of armor/shield.
2. You ignored that eventually on defense the defender will get mithril, if not celestial, boosting them up an extra 2-5 points. (By 20 everyone and their brother has at least a +4 to dex, likely higher even on strength based combatants with, likely +5 inherent)
3. You ignored PA, while the primary argument in favor of two-handed weapons is the advantage of PA.
Defense actually increases faster then offense if you decide to put effort into it.
There are more ways to gain defense bonuses then attack bonuses.
The big ways of gaining attack bonuses are: BAB, Stat, magic Weapon, Class Features.
The big ways of gaining Defense are: nat armor, armor, shield, Stats, deflection, enhancement bonuses to nat armor, armor and shields.
A bog standard F/20 with BAB 20, +10 from 30 Str, +5 Weapon, and +6 Weapon Mastery is at +41. Of this, he's probably going to lose +6 for Power Attack, so he's really at +35.
The same fighter with full plate +5, Shield +5, Nat Armor +5, Dex+7, Deflect +5 is at a 47 AC. He can easily get it to 52 with Defender, 55 with Defensive fighting, and 61 with Expertise.
And we're not even talking displacement or other mischances, or polymorphs to gain more nat armor.==Aelryinth
Yeah, if you throw a lot of effort at your AC it can scale faster than attack bonuses - for most types of characters, not even just an armored fighter.
The flip side of that is that you're going to see a fair number of combats where all those resources the wizard or the archer or the two-hander threw at AC are not going to be that relevant, because it's Mind Flayer Day, or whatever. It's markedly rarer to be in a combat where the wizard's Int enhancer, or the pluses on the archer's bow, or whatever, aren't relevant.
Oh, I'm not disputing the fact that you better have your saves and other defenses, or you're toast.
You'll notice that defenses are cheaper then offenses for just that reason. Saves and AC ARE your defenses. So, combined, they equal the cost of your offense, simply because they don't apply to every incoming attack...where that bonus to hit or Int does help you attack.
==Aelryinth
]Um, we're talking a fighter.
Mithral plate armor with Armor training 4 is +7 Dex bonus. I'm not even using celestial armor.
Right, I forgot Fighters got armor training to increase their dex limits. My bad, you're right there.
And why am I lowering his TH? Just because you think a 30 Str is low?
No, because you mentioned power attacking.
You're comparing someone devoting everything they can into defense, to someone who is intentionally lowering their attack?
Defense actually increases faster then offense if you decide to put effort into it.
None of what you posted really supports your argument here.
How is it faster to get defense?
Also you need to remember that AC tends to be higher than attack bonus at the base. Attack bonuses get a d20 roll added on. AC starts at a base of ten.
So the 52 ac is effectively 55% chance to not get hit by the non power attacking fighter.
But we aren't fighting other fighters usually yes?
Just a quick perusal of CR equivalent baddies at 20 would indicate that full attacks are honestly among the least of your worries.
Inherent bonuses to Dex just for AC purposes are colossally inefficient. Not even with 20th level wealth are they a good investment, because they turn the usual "AC is cheaper or equal to attack bonuses" on its head.
If you're buying +5 inherent Dex, Dex had better be really important to you for some reason other than AC, like it's your to-hit stat.
Attack bonuses get a d20 roll added on. AC starts at a base of ten.
Yeah, but the average d20 roll is 10.5, so they are effectively the same over the long run.
|
|
Inherent bonuses to Dex just for AC purposes are colossally inefficient. Not even with 20th level wealth are they a good investment, because they turn the usual "AC is cheaper or equal to attack bonuses" on its head.
If you're buying +5 inherent Dex, Dex had better be really important to you for some reason other than AC, like it's your to-hit stat.
That's what summoning outsiders (genies) is for. By 20 you should have inherent boosts to every stat. (Though some characters might not bother with Charisma.)
That's what summoning outsiders (genies) is for. By 20 you should have inherent boosts to every stat. (Though some characters might not bother with Charisma.)Inherent bonuses to Dex just for AC purposes are colossally inefficient. Not even with 20th level wealth are they a good investment, because they turn the usual "AC is cheaper or equal to attack bonuses" on its head.
If you're buying +5 inherent Dex, Dex had better be really important to you for some reason other than AC, like it's your to-hit stat.
And the attacker just uses the same Wishes to get +5 inherent Strength. They cancel out.
Stabbity, note that you start with Breastplate and end up with Mithril Full typically. That's also a +4 AC bonus. Your Dex boost is low...it's the 2nd score to get inherents, so it's going to be +5 over starting, not +2. If you're a finesse fighter, it cancels out entirely.
If you figure in Power Attack, as you most assuredly should, your offense falls behind your defense by level. If you are a 3/4 BAB class, you can't even use PA or you risk not being able to hit stuff.
Note that at high levels, doing more per Attack with Power Attack is often less useful then hitting with one more iterative that's doing 30+ damage also, especially if you've got riders on the weapon.
==Aelryinth
Defense actually increases faster then offense if you decide to put effort into it.
There are more ways to gain defense bonuses then attack bonuses.
The big ways of gaining attack bonuses are: BAB, Stat, magic Weapon, Class Features.
The big ways of gaining Defense are: nat armor, armor, shield, Stats, deflection, enhancement bonuses to nat armor, armor and shields.
A bog standard F/20 with BAB 20, +10 from 30 Str, +5 Weapon, and +6 Weapon Mastery is at +41. Of this, he's probably going to lose +6 for Power Attack, so he's really at +35.
The same fighter with full plate +5, Shield +5, Nat Armor +5, Dex+7, Deflect +5 is at a 47 AC. He can easily get it to 52 with Defender, 55 with Defensive fighting, and 61 with Expertise.
And we're not even talking displacement or other mischances, or polymorphs to gain more nat armor.==Aelryinth
Yeah, if you throw a lot of effort at your AC it can scale faster than attack bonuses - for most types of characters, not even just an armored fighter.
The flip side of that is that you're going to see a fair number of combats where all those resources the wizard or the archer or the two-hander threw at AC are not going to be that relevant, because it's Mind Flayer Day, or whatever. It's markedly rarer to be in a combat where the wizard's Int enhancer, or the pluses on the archer's bow, or whatever, aren't relevant.
Oh, I'm not disputing the fact that you better have your saves and other defenses, or you're toast.
You'll notice that defenses are cheaper then offenses for just that reason. Saves and AC ARE your defenses. So, combined, they equal the cost of your offense, simply because they don't apply to every incoming attack...where that bonus to hit or Int does help you attack.
==Aelryinth
Only for magic armor (including shields). The rest of defensive bonuses - dodge vs weapon focus both cost a feat, Beast Totem vs Reckless Abandon both cost a rage power and scale the same, Spell Focus in your favored school is probably a better deal than a save booster feat for a third of your saves - mostly don't maintain the relative cost advantage that exists for armor.
Not all characters use armor and shields, so the economics may often favor offense more than they do with a full plate fighter.
And so, for example, a wizard will almost always want to buy +offense items like an Int headband before +defense ones like a ring of protection, or invest in +offense feats like Spell Focus or metamagic before +defense ones like Iron Will. Offense vs defense is a lot broader topic than attack bonus vs AC.
Attack bonuses get a d20 roll added on. AC starts at a base of ten.Yeah, but the average d20 roll is 10.5, so they are effectively the same over the long run.
But no one is adding 10.5 to their attack bonuses to account for that are they?