I am in a campaign, and I am already solid in my character, I have the option of essentially two ways of fighting. At level 2 I can take a -1 to my attacks and gain a second attack during a full attack sequence. Alternatively, I can have 3 more AC. My roll is melee/close range fighting, without the additional 3 ac I already have the highest in the group(might be tied with warlord).
Would this change if it was only 2 ac? What about 4? 5? You can justify your response to an extent but I am just curious on peoples preferences.
I would probably take the AC, honestly... mainly because I generally avoid anything that subtracts from my accuracy.
VoodistMonk wrote: I would probably take the AC, honestly... mainly because I generally avoid anything that subtracts from my accuracy. 2 attacks at -1 to hit is mathematically much better than 1 attack. You're more likely to hit at peast once, and there's a chance to hit twice, which is obviously better.
That said, I don't know which I'd pick. If you're the only front-line tank in the group then the AC is better. If you're the main damage dealer then the extra attack is better. It depends what role you're filling in the party. You said there's a Warlord with high AC, so it doesn't sound like you're the only person taking hits, but I assume the "Warlord" class is decent at damage too ...
What do you want to focus on?
I know you said yiu don't want builds/etc, but if you tell us what the rest of the party are doing we can probably help more, eg. "We have an Archer-Ranger focusing on damage" etc
Taking -1 for an extra attack is pretty huge; long as you aren’t getting stuck with two bad attacks in place of 1 good one(e.g., two weapon fighting-type issues).
Full attacks are less common than you’d like, but i think you’ll get good value out of it.
I always go for more attacks.
Go for the extra attack if you plan on full attacking more often.
Go for the extra AC if you plan on charging in more often (except with pounce go for the extra attack). You might be able to do without a shield for long enough to pick up Unhindering Shield, and just use a two handed weapon.
On the face of it, I'd probably go for the AC, but it depends on build and party composition.
If your AC is decent, 3 more AC is great.
If your AC is terrible, 3 more AC doesn't much matter. Probably not the case here.
If your AC is great, 3 more AC is unnecessary and may put pressure on other members of the party if the GM ratchets up the difficulty.
Changing the exact amount of AC changes the boundaries of those but not the nature of the categories.
An extra attack has no such concerns and should be useful in any party.
Okay i will fill in a bit more, party is currently 7 players, 3 ranged/spell users, 4 meleeish characters.
My ac without the +3 is a 17 (same as warlord) I use throwing daggers, not a 2 hander. Our other melee is a synthesist summoner and an adaptive shifter. Think we have an oracle a witch and a mesmerist spell casters.
Essentially trying to decide if i should rock my fob, or say screw it and stay armored (i'm only ever taking this one level of monk so it will ONLY matter for a few levels, until i get rapid shot)
Always go with something that will always be useful over something that will only be useful for a short time. The other thing to consider is that normally your opponent’s bonus to hit scales up faster than AC. So while your AC at this level is in the top of the group that may soon change.
Given that information, I'd go for the +3 AC. It will matter when the GM throws a tough encounter at you.
Evilserran wrote: Essentially trying to decide if i should rock my fob, or say screw it and stay armored (i'm only ever taking this one level of monk so it will ONLY matter for a few levels, until i get rapid shot) Sounds like a Far Strike monk? Why not the 2nd level for another +1 to all saves, another bonus feat and evasion?
I did a similar build, but spread my stats around(point buy) because at higher levels +6 enhancement to all ability scores exists. 2 in Far Strike Monk(for effectively 4 bonus feats if you equate Flurry to Rapid Shot), rest into Flying Blade Swashbuckler. Startoss style(mostly for the damage, though having a standard action option was nice), Ricochet Toss (so you can take ability score belt instead of blinkback), and Deific Obedience Pharasma, and a Fortuitious dagger.
Then I threw daggers at people in melee range to provoke Disruptive Counter for more damage. If they took the AoO I basically got a free 'chain shirt' from the Counter.
Evilserran wrote: I am in a campaign, and I am already solid in my character, I have the option of essentially two ways of fighting. At level 2 I can take a -1 to my attacks and gain a second attack during a full attack sequence. Alternatively, I can have 3 more AC. My roll is melee/close range fighting, without the additional 3 ac I already have the highest in the group(might be tied with warlord).
Would this change if it was only 2 ac? What about 4? 5? You can justify your response to an extent but I am just curious on peoples preferences.
So for me, this comes down to group composition. If you have other martial with you, the second attack early would be a great way to set you apart from them. If you don't have much of a front line, you need the AC always.
The AC is always active. It's not IF you have the opportunity to full attack this turn, always active... and it's worth a 6pt increase to Dexterity, which is not a small improvement easily ignored, to me.
The other option literally only matters IF you have the opportunity to full attack. And even then, it costs you the equivalent of a 2pt decrease to your accuracy/attack stat in order to pull it off. How funny would it be if you missed BOTH attacks by 1? Lol.
This is a similar situation to a lot of traits granting bonuses associated with criticals... why waste a trait that could always be active for a bonus to criticals confirmed with a certain weapon under a full moon, or whatever, who cares... the point is, it is a fool's errand to pass up something always active for something that is active less.
The AC bonus comes at zero cost to your character. The extra attack costs you a -1 penalty to both attacks. Hmm...
By level 2 the average D8 hit die PC has 16 HP. The average monster has a "high attack" bonus of +4 and deals approximately 10 damage. Meanwhile, the typical CR2 monster has an AC of 14 and 20 HP.
Now, these stats are based on monster creation rules and, more importantly, they're based around monsters being built to deal with PCs with a 15 point buy following the WBL guidelines. This means that a party of 4 PCs starting from a 15 point buy, each with 1000 GP to spend, should be able to have roughly a 15 AC, withstand 10 points of damage in a round, and with their attacks together deliver approximately 5 damage each with an accuracy equivalent to a +4 or better on their attacks.
Now, look back at your character, your build. If at level 2 you've already got a 17 AC and 16 or more HP, you're in little danger of being destroyed by a single round of melee combat. I have no idea what your attack bonus or average damage is, so I don't really know how to carry that math through.
You have six other people in the party. Of these, 3 others are in melee combat with you. Unless you only fight huge mobs of foes or creatures immune to this tactic, it is entirely possible to establish Flanking with other members of the party. Any time you can pull that off you've got +2 to attack. That one action is more valuable to anyone in that Flank than a single Weapon Focus feat added to a Masterwork weapon.
Buried in the middle of a party that big, my personal opinion is to be bold and experimental with your build. Do what feels fun, try things. Take a level in Monk, or some other class, or whatever because it's interesting. You need better accuracy? Use an Acrobatics check to get opposite another PC without an AoO and you're there.
TL/DR: in a party of 7 members, I wouldn't worry too much about combat math unless that's where your fun in playing this game comes from. If it is, I'd say extra attacks b/c Flanking.
Take all of the above with the following grains of salt however - I rarely play tanks, or melee DPR specialists, or controller casters and such. Instead I tend to focus on out-of-combat utilities, character driven builds and meeting the basic benchmarks laid out in the Monster Creation rules.
I'd want AC. I want to be more sturdy for myself. I can't act or take actions without it.
VoodistMonk wrote: The AC bonus comes at zero cost to your character. The extra attack costs you a -1 penalty to both attacks. While I disagree with the logic here (attacking is what ends encounters 99% of the time, not defending), I think I agree with the result in this specific situation.
An extra attack is pretty amazing. Rapid Shot is basically *required* for archers and the like, and what you're describing is better than that.
...but *+3* is a lot. That's a +1 heavy shield, or upgrading studded leather to breastplate, or breastplate to full. It's better than Dodge+Shield Focus+Greater Shield Focus.
If your attack was something like +10 (2d6+10) or whatever, I'd probably recommend the extra attack. But even then, it would be close.
Daggers? Meh, go with the AC boost.
+3 to AC is 15% less times you will get hit. a -1 to hit, but an extra attack, is a big boost (more than 15%) to your chance of hitting, with the potential to hit twice sometimes. And like mentioned before, the faster you kill the bad guy, the less often he gets to hit you.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but when figuring multiple probabilities don't you multiply them together? So, if the standard CR2 monster has a 14 AC and you have, say, +5 to hit, one attack's probability is 60%. Then, taking 2 attacks at -1 to hit on both of them is 55% x 55%, for a total of 30.25% to hit with both attacks in a single round, right?
In terms of damage, excluding the possibility of critical hits, you go from an expectation of 60% of your average weapon damage to (Weapon Damage x 30.25%)x2, right? So, if your average was 10 damage, you'd go from 6 damage/round to 6.05 damage/round, right?
So you get a net .05 damage increase through multiple attacks, or you could reduce your chance of being damaged by 15%?
I feel like I'm doing this wrong. Please someone smarter than me correct my bad math! I apologize for bringing down the IQ of this thread lol!
Mark Hoover 330 wrote: Forgive me if I'm wrong, but when figuring multiple probabilities don't you multiply them together? So, if the standard CR2 monster has a 14 AC and you have, say, +5 to hit, one attack's probability is 60%. Then, taking 2 attacks at -1 to hit on both of them is 55% x 55%, for a total of 30.25% to hit with both attacks in a single round, right?
In terms of damage, excluding the possibility of critical hits, you go from an expectation of 60% of your average weapon damage to (Weapon Damage x 30.25%)x2, right? So, if your average was 10 damage, you'd go from 6 damage/round to 6.05 damage/round, right?
So you get a net .05 damage increase through multiple attacks, or you could reduce your chance of being damaged by 15%?
I feel like I'm doing this wrong. Please someone smarter than me correct my bad math! I apologize for bringing down the IQ of this thread lol!
for this, i find it’s simpler to add the total chances together without multiplication. Because you can actually hit twice, it gets simpler.
Example: normally you hit on a roll of 9, or 60% of the time. With -1 but an extra attack, you hit on a ten, but only 55% of the time. But since it’s two attacks, it’s hitting 110% of the time in place of 60% of the time (for a total of 1.1 hits/round). That’s a big increase.
Lelomenia wrote: Mark Hoover 330 wrote: Forgive me if I'm wrong, but when figuring multiple probabilities don't you multiply them together? So, if the standard CR2 monster has a 14 AC and you have, say, +5 to hit, one attack's probability is 60%. Then, taking 2 attacks at -1 to hit on both of them is 55% x 55%, for a total of 30.25% to hit with both attacks in a single round, right?
In terms of damage, excluding the possibility of critical hits, you go from an expectation of 60% of your average weapon damage to (Weapon Damage x 30.25%)x2, right? So, if your average was 10 damage, you'd go from 6 damage/round to 6.05 damage/round, right?
So you get a net .05 damage increase through multiple attacks, or you could reduce your chance of being damaged by 15%?
I feel like I'm doing this wrong. Please someone smarter than me correct my bad math! I apologize for bringing down the IQ of this thread lol!
for this, i find it’s simpler to add the total chances together without multiplication. Because you can actually hit twice, it gets simpler.
Example: normally you hit on a roll of 9, or 60% of the time. With -1 but an extra attack, you hit on a ten, but only 55% of the time. But since it’s two attacks, it’s hitting 110% of the time in place of 60% of the time (for a total of 1.1 hits/round). That’s a big increase. Right number, but the wrong math.
I think Mark Hoover 330 is missing the chance that one hits but not the other.
Lets say damage is 100 to make the percentage math easier.
So chance of both hitting = 55% * 55% = 30.25% * 200 (expected damage of 2 hits) = 60.5
Chance of first attack hitting but second missing is 55% * 45% = 24.75% * 100 (1 hit) = 24.75
Chance of first attack missing but second hitting is 45% * 55% = 24.75% * 100 (1 hit) = 24.75
Chance of both missing is 45% * 45% = 20.25% * 0 (because both missed) = 0
We can double check our work by adding up the %s, which adds to 100%.
Total expected damage is 110 compared to 60 from a single attack without the -1 to hit.
It's actually very similar to figure out critical hits, except instead of a second attack you have a confirmation roll. And obviously if the roll didn't threat, you don't have to check for confirmation.
83% damage increase vs 15% defense. Kinda. If you can full attack... and the higher your AC the more effective it is, like if enemy needed a 15 to hit you before your AC buff, +3 to AC is decreasing the damage you take by 50%. Against things that target AC, at least.
Unarmored monk also applies to CMD, touch attacks and when you are flat footed, so even though you are at -3 for full AC, you are probably at least a couple points higher in other defenses.
I would like ti point out i think i stated the attacks are with throwing daggers. I can only flurry when throwing them, so flnking iw irrelevant. A friend of mine also pointed out as a level of swshbuckler, two attacks is a better chance to get that crit to restore panache.
Two good choices but go with the extra attack. Outside of being hasted there is no other way to get this. In the long run AC becomes less important and you should try to start layering your defenses. Plus AC is easier to improve. For example, shield spell, barkskin, mage armor, feats, and items can all be used to help your AC.
However, this only makes sense if you use the full attack action a lot. If you are using mobility as a defense or use your move action to support/buff go with the AC.
|
