D&D 4th Edition RulesAsk questions about 4th-Edition rules and the like in here. General discussion about 4E or any other game belongs in General RPG Discussion, above.
Masterwork from Adventurer's Vault: Help Me Grock It
In the PHB, there are masterwork versions of armor that become available at 16th level (or, in other words, for armors with at least a +4 enhancment bonus). It took a couple of readings to get what the designers ought to have come right out and said: "at higher levels, we're trying to ramp up players' armor classes, so this stuff is not really optional". So, every +4 chainmail should be made of forgemail and every +4 suit of leather should be feyleather. For all practical intents and purposes, the upgrade is a given.
I could live with characters getting an AC boost at the mid-paragon levels. But then Adventurer's Vault came out, and now we get light masterwork armors granting non-AC bonuses at 11th level, and heavy masterwork armor granting extra AC bonuses all the way down at 6th level. I let AV's Superior Weapons slide, even though they exacerbated the damage gap between weapon and implement attacks. Now, I've gotta contemplate whether these masterwork armors are patching something that's defective, or they're just power creep.
My chief concern is giving out AC boosts at those levels, because my 11th level PC's all have AC's between 25-27, and monsters of equivalent level already seem to have a sufficiently difficult time hitting them. So, it seems completely unnecessary and, unlike Superior Weapons, devoid of even a token cost.
Thus, I'm inclined to just giving the AV masterwork armors a thumbs-down. Thoughts?
Let's compare light armor to heavy armor. We'll say Hide armor on a ranged Ranger vs. Scale armor on a Fighter. We'll assume 18 Dex on the Ranger. At level 1, they look like this:
10+Hide Armor + Dex mod: AC 17
10+Scale Armor: AC 17
Now we'll fast forward a few levels, to level 8. The Ranger has bumped his Dex a couple of times, and both have picked up +2 armor.
14+Hide Armor+Dex mod+Enhancement: AC 24
14+Scale Armor+Enhancement: AC 23
Fast forward again to level 12 (without the AV masterwork). Again, the Ranger has bumped his Dex a couple of times, each has +3 armor, and neither has taken their Armor Specialization feats:
16+Hide Armor+Dex mod+Enhancement: AC 28
16+Scale Armor+Enhancement: AC 26
See the problem? This is part of what the Masterwork armor in the PHB is fixing. The Adventurer's Vault armors just smooth the curve so that Heavy Armor stays about equivalent with Light Armor throughout, instead of falling behind, catching up at level 16, falling behind again, and catching up again at level 26.
because my 11th level PC's all have AC's between 25-27, and monsters of equivalent level already seem to have a sufficiently difficult time hitting them.
Hmm, your attack bonuses should range between about +12 vs. AC (9th Brute) to +21 vs. AC (14th Soldier) under most circumstances, plus combat advantage a moderate amount of the time. You shouldn't be having too much trouble hitting.
Hmm, your attack bonuses should range between about +12 vs. AC (9th Brute) to +21 vs. AC (14th Soldier) under most circumstances, plus combat advantage a moderate amount of the time. You shouldn't be having too much trouble hitting.
I almost never have lower level foes against my PCs. Going back to the same level question, +14 vs. AC (11th Brute) vs. AC 25 to 27 = 40% to 50% chance to hit and +18 vs. AC (11th Soldier) vs. AC 25 to 27 = 60% to 70% chance to hit. Higher level foes are even easier.
There are 3 monster roles at level +5, 2 monster roles at level +7, and only 1 monster role at level +3.
So average same level monster against average PC here would be a 55+% chance to hit, better than 50/50 without combat advantage.
__________________ The first sign of a broken rule is when someone suggests that the way to stop it is by readying an action.
Let's compare light armor to heavy armor. We'll say Hide armor on a ranged Ranger vs. Scale armor on a Fighter. We'll assume 18 Dex on the Ranger. At level 1, they look like this:
10+Hide Armor + Dex mod: AC 17
10+Scale Armor: AC 17
Now we'll fast forward a few levels, to level 8. The Ranger has bumped his Dex a couple of times, and both have picked up +2 armor.
14+Hide Armor+Dex mod+Enhancement: AC 24
14+Scale Armor+Enhancement: AC 23
Fast forward again to level 12 (without the AV masterwork). Again, the Ranger has bumped his Dex a couple of times, each has +3 armor, and neither has taken their Armor Specialization feats:
16+Hide Armor+Dex mod+Enhancement: AC 28
16+Scale Armor+Enhancement: AC 26
See the problem?
t~
Hmmmmm........I do see a problem here, but it's with the math presented.
Comparing hide to scale is not an even comparison. Hide armor offers the best AC of the light armors. Plate offers the best AC of the heavy armors. There's the comparison. Of course, fighters don't have plate proficiency, but that's not the heavy armor's problem anymore than it's light armor's problem that the rogue doesn't have hide proficiency.
So, your 1st-level heavy armor guy straps on some plate and starts with 18 AC to the light armor guy's 17, and is actually ahead of the curve until 8th level. At 8th, the light armor guy has bumped his Dex (or Int in some outre scenario) to 20. They are even at 24 AC.
At 12th, you say the ranger has "bumped his Dex a couple of times", but he's only bumped it once more to 21. They're still even at 27 AC.
At 14th the light armor guy has bumped his Dex/Int up to pull ahead, but at that point level 16 armors are available, and thus so are masterwork armors.
Now, here's my 11th-level party:
Rogue: 20 Dex, +3 Leather = 25 AC
Barbarian: +3 Scale = 25 AC
Cleric: +3 Scale = 25 AC
Paladin: Plate +2 and shield = 27 AC
I see parity here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by keterys
Hmm, your attack bonuses should range between about +12 vs. AC (9th Brute) to +21 vs. AC (14th Soldier) under most circumstances, plus combat advantage a moderate amount of the time. You shouldn't be having too much trouble hitting.
I'm seeing mostly +15 and +16's from stuff of an even level. I actually try to refrain going much higher than level +1, because that ramps the grind with a lot of whiff factor.
Thus, I'm inclined to just giving the AV masterwork armors a thumbs-down. Thoughts?
There's no reason that Heavy Armors should scale so abruptly when you get to a +4 and +6 enchantment bonus, like they do with core-book Masterwork Heavy Armors. The AV and PH-II MW armors fix this problem. Otherwise, picking up a +4 suit of Heavy Armor is worth a marginal +4 AC bonus over +3 armor and the same happens again from +5 to +6 armor. As evidenced by the fact that some of the AV armors were included in PH-II, this is definitely errata in disguise.
If you assume that characters get a higher plus armor on 2/7 ending levels, then core-rules Heavy Armor users get additional bonuses above their level + enchantment at:
Level 17: +3
Level 27: +6
Meanwhile, Light Armor users who boost Dex/Int and start with an even stat get:
Level 8: +1
Level 14: +2
Level 17: +3
Level 21: +4
Level 27: +5
Level 28: +6
There's no reason why Heavy Armor should scale so abruptly and Light Armor should scale relatively smoothly.
There's no reason that Heavy Armors should scale so abruptly when you get to a +4 and +6 enchantment bonus, like they do with core-book Masterwork Heavy Armors. The AV and PH-II MW armors fix this problem.
So, introducing MW armor in the PHB created a mess by abruptly scaling AC's, and AV smooths out the mess by overboosting armor at lower levels. Really, I see your "abrupt-scaling" argument as more of an indictment against MW armor on the whole than it is an incentive for handing out AC bonuses earlier.
Quote:
There's no reason why Heavy Armor should scale so abruptly and Light Armor should scale relatively smoothly.
You're helping to convince me there's no reason for MW armor. I was accepting them at 16th level because of concerns about light armor wearers pulling ahead by virtue of ability score improvement, but as you point out the bumps are excessive. Instead of bumping the base bonus of heavy armor by one point, they bump it by three. WotC are loather to nerf this stuff, so the best they can do is try to smooth it out.
So, introducing MW armor in the PHB created a mess by abruptly scaling AC's, and AV smooths out the mess by overboosting armor at lower levels. Really, I see your "abrupt-scaling" argument as more of an indictment against MW armor on the whole than it is an incentive for handing out AC bonuses earlier.
AC does not "over-scale" at low levels even with AV/PH-II MW heavy armor. Even with AV/PH-II MW heavy armors, if you assume the level 2/7 progression I do above, the only levels where PCs are ahead of monster's +1 per level to-hit scaling compared to level 1 is level 2 (+1 from enhancement and +1 from level). If you assume that PCs get higher pluses to armors at level 2 and then 6/11/16/21/26, PCs are still only ahead at levels 2 and 6. You can find tables of these results in many places on the forums.
Quote:
You're helping to convince me there's no reason for MW armor. I was accepting them at 16th level because of concerns about light armor wearers pulling ahead by virtue of ability score improvement, but as you point out the bumps are excessive. Instead of bumping the base bonus of heavy armor by one point, they bump it by three. WotC are loather to nerf this stuff, so the best they can do is try to smooth it out.
There is a reason to MW armor; characters need the AC boost, particularly characters in heavy armor who don't spend stat boosts on Dex/Int. See, for example, the calculations here.
Rogue: 20 Dex, +3 Leather = 25 AC
Barbarian: +3 Scale = 25 AC
Cleric: +3 Scale = 25 AC
Paladin: Plate +2 and shield = 27 AC
I see parity here.
I don't. I see that you are screwing your players whose PCs use heavy armor and rewarding the player of the Rogue.
With the AV / PHB II rules and assuming that you gave the Paladin the same +3 armor that you handed out to the other PCs, against average same level foes, this would become:
Rogue: 25 AC, foe hits on a 10 (55%)
Barbarian: 27 AC, foe hits on a 12 (45%)
Cleric: 27 AC, foe hits on a 12 (45%)
Paladin: 30 AC, foe hits on a 15 (30%)
Sure, the Barbarian and Cleric have a 45% chance to get hit. But both of them took a feat (two feats in the case of the Barbarian) so that they would not be at 50% against same level foes.
Sure, the Paladin is much harder to hit. He's supposed to be. He's a defender and will get attacked more than his allies on average. He's still going to get hit one attack in three. And, I bet his Reflex defense sucks.
And, the game is not designed for every encounter to be against same level foes. A standard encounter is same level or same level +1. Without even getting to a difficult encounter, this means that level +1 foes in a standard encounter would be:
Rogue: 25 AC, foe hits on a 9 (60%)
Barbarian: 27 AC, foe hits on a 11 (50%)
Cleric: 27 AC, foe hits on a 11 (50%)
Paladin: 30 AC, foe hits on a 14 (35%)
3 out of 4 members of this party get hit 50% or more of the time in this standard encounter. That's not enough for you?
If the Rogue took the Hide armor feat like the Cleric took the Scale armor feat, the Rogue would be better protected. His choice. If the Rogue took shield proficiency, he would also be better protected. He shouldn't have the same AC as his fellow PCs who used feats to do so.
But with the PHB (screwed up) heavy armor rules, the Barbarian and Cleric have the same chance of being hit as the Rogue, even though the Barbarian and Cleric took one or more feats. You are screwing your Barbarian and Cleric.
So, you are screwing 3 of your 4 players because 3 of 4 are wearing heavy armor.
Seriously. People have looked at the math very carefully. Not using the AV masterwork armor rules is going to screw some of your players. I doubt you will find many people here that agree with your POV.
And, the fact that your supposed to be squishy Rogue has the same AC as your Barbarian and Cleric should throw up a big red flag that something is wrong. What is wrong is that your heavy armors are too low because you are following the PHB broken rules on them. Your Rogues does more damage than the other two PCs and has as good of AC as the two PCs that used feats to get there when he did not.
You see nothing wrong with that?
Here are the number on the die needed by same level foes (to hit level +5) with your Rogue, Barbarian/Cleric, and Paladin using core rules and using AV rules. I am assuming they get +1 better armor at levels 3, 6, 11, 16, 21, and 26:
Although the Rogue was easier to hit at level one, he is actually harder to hit than the Cleric or Barbarian at levels 14 or 15 and often the same to hit due to the flaw in the math. In the first three columns, this is not the case. The better armor (i.e. heavy) is better.
At levels 14 and 15 with core rules, Leather + Dex = Plate armor. WT?
That's fixed in AV.
__________________ The first sign of a broken rule is when someone suggests that the way to stop it is by readying an action.
Rogue: 25 AC, foe hits on a 10 (55%)
Barbarian: 27 AC, foe hits on a 12 (45%)
Cleric: 27 AC, foe hits on a 12 (45%)
Paladin: 30 AC, foe hits on a 15 (30%)
...[vs. +1 level foes]
Rogue: 25 AC, foe hits on a 9 (60%)
Barbarian: 27 AC, foe hits on a 11 (50%)
Cleric: 27 AC, foe hits on a 11 (50%)
Paladin: 30 AC, foe hits on a 14 (35%)
Since his characters are level 11, standard monster to-hit at level+5 (as you use below) should be +16. So all of these numbers are 5 percentage points too favorable to the party.
I don't. I see that you are screwing your players whose PCs use heavy armor and rewarding the player of the Rogue.
With the AV / PHB II rules and assuming that you gave the Paladin the same +3 armor that you handed out to the other PCs, against average same level foes, this would become:
Rogue: 25 AC, foe hits on a 10 (55%)
Barbarian: 27 AC, foe hits on a 12 (45%)
Cleric: 27 AC, foe hits on a 12 (45%)
Paladin: 30 AC, foe hits on a 15 (30%)
Sure, the Barbarian and Cleric have a 45% chance to get hit. But both of them took a feat (two feats in the case of the Barbarian) so that they would not be at 50% against same level foes.
Sure, the Paladin is much harder to hit. He's supposed to be. He's a defender and will get attacked more than his allies on average. He's still going to get hit one attack in three. And, I bet his Reflex defense sucks.
And, the game is not designed for every encounter to be against same level foes. A standard encounter is same level or same level +1. Without even getting to a difficult encounter, this means that level +1 foes in a standard encounter would be:
Rogue: 25 AC, foe hits on a 9 (60%)
Barbarian: 27 AC, foe hits on a 11 (50%)
Cleric: 27 AC, foe hits on a 11 (50%)
Paladin: 30 AC, foe hits on a 14 (35%)
3 out of 4 members of this party get hit 50% or more of the time in this standard encounter. That's not enough for you?
If the Rogue took the Hide armor feat like the Cleric took the Scale armor feat, the Rogue would be better protected. His choice. If the Rogue took shield proficiency, he would also be better protected. He shouldn't have the same AC as his fellow PCs who used feats to do so.
But with the PHB (screwed up) heavy armor rules, the Barbarian and Cleric have the same chance of being hit as the Rogue, even though the Barbarian and Cleric took one or more feats. You are screwing your Barbarian and Cleric.
So, you are screwing 3 of your 4 players because 3 of 4 are wearing heavy armor.
Seriously. People have looked at the math very carefully. Not using the AV masterwork armor rules is going to screw some of your players. I doubt you will find many people here that agree with your POV.
And, the fact that your supposed to be squishy Rogue has the same AC as your Barbarian and Cleric should throw up a big red flag that something is wrong. What is wrong is that your heavy armors are too low because you are following the PHB broken rules on them. Your Rogues does more damage than the other two PCs and has as good of AC as the two PCs that used feats to get there when he did not.
You see nothing wrong with that?
Here are the number on the die needed by same level foes (to hit level +5) with your Rogue, Barbarian/Cleric, and Paladin using core rules and using AV rules. I am assuming they get +1 better armor at levels 3, 6, 11, 16, 21, and 26:
SNIP CODE
Although the Rogue was easier to hit at level one, he is actually harder to hit than the Cleric or Barbarian at levels 14 or 15 and often the same to hit due to the flaw in the math. In the first three columns, this is not the case. The better armor (i.e. heavy) is better.
At levels 14 and 15 with core rules, Leather + Dex = Plate armor. WT?
That's fixed in AV.
You're simply making a lot of assumptions, notably that a rogue should be squishy. I don't see any evidence that validates that perspective, or that a cleric is entitled to a higher AC than a rogue; that the cleric has the worst of the heavy armors tends to indicate that he's not supposed to have great armor class. Chainmail is, effectively, the heavy armor analogue to cloth. So a cleric spends a feat to catch up.
As for the barbarian, his choice to spend feats to wear scale is poor considering his Barbarian Agility ability would give him a similar AC as well as a Reflex boost, but that's an issue with the player. Surprised you didn't catch that, KD.
The paladin's already got a good AC, gets missed often, and his Reflex doesn't suck because he's got a shield. Again, guess that one slipped past you.
I'm comfortable with seeing cloth, leather, and hide balanced against, chain, scale, and plate they way the PHB sets them up. The quick, agile character is as viable as the tank, which is something many folks longed to see in D&D for a long time. I see some adjustments necessary to maintain that balance at upper-paragon levels, but masterwork armor seems to simply overturn the apple cart with old-school bias towards heavy armor.
So, basically, things are fine the way they are, despite your charmless comments about screwing my players. If their AC's suddlenly ramped up, then I'd wind up using more high-level opponents to compensate. I've run Dungeon Delve encounters, and I've seen what happens when a brute gets thrown at the party that's several levels higher. It doesn't all come out in the wash. The party misses more often and have to inflict more damage to kill foes, and all of that is ultimately not in the best interest of my players.
Between the cleric and the pally mclassed as warlord, they have tons of rope-a-dope ability, because they are loaded with healing powers and little else in the way of leadership. So, foes missing more often doesn't make them sweat. However, taking forever to make a dent in a fight is a frequent issue.
You make a lot of assumptions, notably that a rogue should be squishy and lag behing the other characters. I don't agree that a cleric is entitled to a higher AC.
Why did you come here to discuss this?
To argue?
To justify to your players?
Obviously, you are ignoring the math. Did you even look at the chart? Do you not see the heavy armor lag mid-Paragon levels? You are ignoring the fact that the Cleric took a feat to get Scale and hence should have a better AC than the Rogue.
Did you make up your mind before you even wrote a single word? You don't appear to care that the Rogue that had a lesser AC than the Cleric at level 1 has a better AC at levels 14 and 15 with the original rules.
And you sure as heck are not going to convince anyone else. Everyone who responded to you explained it and you still are disagreeing. And quite frankly, WotC disagrees with you as well.
Maybe you should ask yourself why.
It's not power creep. As the chart illustrates, it's game balance. WotC smoothed out the curve. The Cleric and Barbarian although they are supposed to get hit 5% less often than the Rogue (who did not take a feat to boost AC) get hit the same amount or even more often 13 levels out of 30 with the original rules. That's why WotC fixed it. Math 101.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elric
Since his characters are level 11, standard monster to-hit at level+5 (as you use below) should be +16. So all of these numbers are 5 percentage points too favorable to the party.
Hate when I do that:
...[vs. same level foes]
Rogue: 25 AC, foe hits on a 9 (60%)
Barbarian: 27 AC, foe hits on a 11 (50%)
Cleric: 27 AC, foe hits on a 11 (50%)
Paladin: 30 AC, foe hits on a 14 (35%)
...[vs. +1 level foes]
Rogue: 25 AC, foe hits on a 8 (65%)
Barbarian: 27 AC, foe hits on a 10 (55%)
Cleric: 27 AC, foe hits on a 10 (55%)
Paladin: 30 AC, foe hits on a 13 (40%)
__________________ The first sign of a broken rule is when someone suggests that the way to stop it is by readying an action.
Hmmmmm........I do see a problem here, but it's with the math presented.
Comparing hide to scale is not an even comparison. Hide armor offers the best AC of the light armors. Plate offers the best AC of the heavy armors. There's the comparison. Of course, fighters don't have plate proficiency, but that's not the heavy armor's problem anymore than it's light armor's problem that the rogue doesn't have hide proficiency.
Plate is comparable to Hide with a starting 20. Scale is comparable to Hide with a starting 18, or Leather with a starting 20. Arguing about these starting conditions is nit-picking for the sake of argumentation. I started with even AC. I could have done this with any number of configurations (such as Chain vs. Hide + starting 16 or Leather + starting 18). I then demonstrated that these characters had unequal scaling as they progressed in levels, and that the masterwork armors presented in AV evened out the scaling. Since the problem is with the scaling, the starting conditions don't actually matter; what matters is the relative change.
And yes, I got level 12 and 14 confused. The core of the argument remains sound.
If you feel that heavy armor should consistently provide better AC than light armor, then you have to use the masterwork armor rules.
If you don't use the Masterwork rules then you are weakening classes like Paladin and Fighter who depend on armor as a class feature.
I think that the Defender PC's will have more fun if they have advantages that make them important. If the strikers and controllers need to be protected, then the defender can shine. If the strikers and controllers are too high in AC, then the defender just becomes a guy who contributes but gets pushed to the second tier of importance.
Obviously, you are ignoring the math. Did you even look at the chart? Do you not see the heavy armor lag mid-Paragon levels? You are ignoring the fact that the Cleric took a feat to get Scale and hence should have a better AC than the Rogue.
No, Karinsdad, I came here to listen to your snark--which is probably the same reason you come here. You are the one who has tried to make a simple discussion into a hostile confrontation. You could stand to chill out a little bit.
I looked at your numbers, and then I conceded that the numbers work against the heavy armor wearers in the paragon levels when the light armor wearers are starting to get their fourth +1 adjustment. So, not sure why you behave as if I ignored them. Probably because I still don't agree that going with the revised MW armor fixes everything. It creates a different skew in the other direction.
Your conclusion based on those numbers is skewed by your perception of who should be top dog. As you see it, the cleric spent a feat, and the rogue didn't, so there's an injustice in the rogue being even up with the cleric. A wizard or sorcerer or avenger could spend a feat to get leather, and they'd still be neck-and-neck with a rogue. Is that inequity? No, it's just that when it comes to armor proficiencies, not everyone's equal. The rogue gets leather, then is allowed to add his superlative Dex to it. The cleric gets chainmail, and adds nothing--they don't even let'im have a shield anymore. Seems to me the cleric is positioned to have a lower AC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KarinsDad
That's true.
But players that pay for high AC having a low AC and players that pay for a low AC having a high AC in the same game is probably not fun.
See, this is where you can show all the math you want, but it really comes down to personal bias. It seems you want the heavy armor wearers to come out ahead, because you perceive that they "paid for it". But again, a wizard that pays a feat--even two--to get better armor isn't suddenly entitled to leap to the front of the pack, is he?
Quote:
Originally Posted by KarinsDad
And you sure as heck are not going to convince anyone else. Everyone who responded to you explained it and you still are disagreeing. And quite frankly, WotC disagrees with you as well.
KD, folks have told you to knock if off with the denigrating attitude for all the years you've been at ENWorld, and you persist. So, you should be able to sympathize with my unwillingness to simply concede to the majority simply because they're the majority.
Let me give you some backstory: when 4e came out, I was the first to post about the glaring inequity between giving weapon attacks the [W] variable and giving implement attacks a fixed number. The weapon users benefit from a hefty discrepancy in damage. Nobody agreed with me then. They insisted WotC knows best. They used math to support their arguments that a warlock, rogue, and ranger are on an equal footing. I was Henny Penny screaming the sky was falling, while everyone else was lost in the rapture of 4e.
I was also among the very first to pipe up and ask if anyone else noticed how grindy combat was in 4e, how players often shoot their wad of encounters and wind up hewing away at hundreds of HP with at-wills, and how a combination of high monster HP and a high whiff factor for attacks did not make for the quick battles 4e was supposed to deliver. I posted about it, and received very little support. Everyone else felt things ran smmoth as silk. They used math to show how battles would be wrapped up in a very reasonable time frame. Must be my party doing something wrong. Maybe not the right composition. I was a 4e-bashing Henny Penny again.
But over time, folks came around. Not everybody, of course--for every boy who cries wolf, there's someone who will insist the emperor's new clothes are fine--but enough to make me feel vindicated in the long run.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
