Pathfinder 1E How to deal with high AC PCs

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]: That's not exactly what I'm advocating, no. I'd opt to make the player feel useful as much as everybody else, but also challenge him from time to time with stuff his high AC doesn't help him with. The combination ought to serve in communicating: 'you made a choice, and it's having consequences - good ones occasionally, but also bad ones from time to time'.

Nowhere am I "suggesting that the game proceed with the player suffering with a poor build, and the GM having headaches working around it". The OP was complaining that a PC with very high AC is causing him problems because he felt he couldn't challenge him enough (as in, make sure mooks and standard melee opponents could reliably hit him). What I tried to say to the OP was that he misunderstood the 'problem' his player was causing him: the problem is not that the PC's AC is unhittable, but that the player has pigeonholed his PC so much that he requires a firm understanding of the situation and certain measured DM responses to keep the game fun for everybody.

I am generally opposed to changing parts of the very core of D&D's mechanics (like the stacking rules) in response to a situation that might just call for a slightly more flexible approach in-game. The rules change you advocate takes a certain amount of choice away from the players (choice which might, admittedly, lead to hyperspecialization) for no gain that couldn't be had through a flexible DM.

"Something's not going the way I like it in my game so I'm changing the rules" is a knee-jerk reaction that is unwarranted. In such a complex game as D&D, I almost invariably find it best not to change the rules or apply the nerfbat. You can almost always get better results (better as in, resulting in a more fun game for everybody) by adapting the way you play, or what you expect.

Empirate said:

I am generally opposed to changing parts of the very core of D&D's mechanics (like the stacking rules) in response to a situation that might just call for a slightly more flexible approach in-game.

<snip>

"Something's not going the way I like it in my game so I'm changing the rules" is a knee-jerk reaction that is unwarranted. In such a complex game as D&D, I almost invariably find it best not to change the rules or apply the nerfbat. You can almost always get better results (better as in, resulting in a more fun game for everybody) by adapting the way you play, or what you expect.

Click to expand...

My experience has almost always been the opposite: when a rules element - be it a spell, or a stacking rule, or whatever, is getting in the way of a preferred approach to play, change the rule!

For example, in 4e there is an ambiguity as to whether, when you get dazed on your turn, (1) your action allowance remains as it was at the start of the turn (in effect, at the start of your turn you get a "pool of actions" to use that can't be subsequently depleted except by using them), or (2) you immediately become subject to the "no more than one action in your turn" effect, in which case, if you've already acted on the turn, you can suddenly find yourself running out of actions. We used to use rule (1), but then discovered it caused some irritating consequencse in play, and so we shifted to rule (2).

In this particular case, if the game is meant to be viable if a PC has only an enhancement bonus, or a deflection bonus, but not both, that what harm can be done by preventing them stacking?

pemerton said:

My experience has almost always been the opposite: when a rules element - be it a spell, or a stacking rule, or whatever, is getting in the way of a preferred approach to play, change the rule!

<snip>

In this particular case, if the game is meant to be viable if a PC has only an enhancement bonus, or a deflection bonus, but not both, that what harm can be done by preventing them stacking?

Click to expand...

"Preferred approach to play", you say - preferred by whom? You basically nerf the player's (not very useful in the first place, but that doesn't come into it here) schtick, and for what gain? DMs who just break out the banhammer everytime they feel they can't handle something a player has thrown together fails at system mastery, which is an important DM skill. Sure, there are a few extremely broken and atrociously badly/open-endedly worded things in D&D, but the stacking rules isn't one of them.

And again, "if the game is meant to be viable etc." - is meant by whom? Designer's intention? Then why were the stacking rules implemented the way they were? I think they work exactly the way they're "meant" to, and the possibility of getting very high AC, or very high saves, is just part of an open-ended design philosophy, which I very much condone.

Mad Hamish said:

He's not much over and the wealth by level isn't an exact rule, if you're crafting items you'll commonly be a bit over.
The big issue is that virtually everything he's got is for boosting AC. His offense is poor and he's limited to the ground.

Click to expand...

Agreed, but if you see something like this a light bulb should have gone off, (Oh , he's getting +8 enchantment bonus to AC from magic items.. and this place is supposed to be low fantasy, hmmmm ringing any bells?)

I was just trying to give an excuse other than "Take those away".

In response to the problem of low-level monsters/NPCs hitting higher level PCs:

If you haven't already, have a look at the average monster stats in the Bestiary (reproduced here). There are some interesting points of data to be gleaned.

Primarily, the Attack bonus of monsters goes up by 2/level up to level 10, after which it flattens out to 1/level. Roughly. Meanwhile, the AC of monsters is a bit unpredictable, but is fairly similar in slope to that of their attacks.

This has the effect of making lower-level monsters become obsolete more quickly than higher-level monsters. Sure, the low-level monsters might still be able to hit the thieves and wizards in the party, but as it's the fighters they're likely to be attacking, if they only have a 30% chance chance in the beginning of striking, that 2-level gap quickly converts it into a 10% chance.

For example, a single ogre (+7 attack, CR 3) will hit a standard 3rd level fighter (AC 22, = fullplate + shield + 1 Dex) on a 15 or better. Two ogres make up a CR 5 encounter, but the 5th level fighter's AC could well be AC 25 by this stage, so it now requires an 18 to hit; a 15% chance compared to 30%. Another level makes things worse. Four ogres against a 7th level party? That's really bad for the ogres.

Is this a bad thing? Not necessarily, but for your situation of wanting low-level NPCs to be a threat against an 8th level party? Yeah, it probably is. The difference between a CR3 and a CR8 monster is a full +9.

Crafting feats are particularly dangerous because they significantly speed up the gain in both AC and attack potential - though more that of AC. At my count, there are six primary items to increase AC, but only three items for attacks. (Attacks, meanwhile, are increased by level where AC is not. Normally).

AC: Dex-enhancement, Dex-inherent, AC-enhancement, Shield-enhancement, Deflection, Natural Armour-enhancement
Attack: Str/Dex-enhancement, Str/Dex-inherent, weapon-enhancement.

While I've given 6,000 gp as the cost above, with a caster with Craft Arms & Armour, that become 5,000 gp... and from now on, the pace will accelerate as more money comes into the party's hands. It's a bit scary.

GP available vs. Bonus to AC without and with (all the) Craft feats
2,000 GP = +2 without, +3 with
13,000 GP = +6 without, +9 with
55,000 GP = +13 without, +18 with

Yes, you need crafters in the party willing to take Craft Magic Arms and Armour, Forge Ring and Craft Wondrous Item, so other groups' experiences will definitely vary. In my groups of late, they've been more than happy to pick up these feats... and the power bonus to the fighters that accrues from it.

Cheers!

Empirate said:

"Preferred approach to play", you say - preferred by whom?

Click to expand...

Me and my players.

Empirate said:

You basically nerf the player's (not very useful in the first place, but that doesn't come into it here) schtick, and for what gain?

Click to expand...

Encounters that are less boring and/or less contrived.

Empirate said:

DMs who just break out the banhammer everytime they feel they can't handle something a player has thrown together fails at system mastery, which is an important DM skill.

Click to expand...

Not remotely true. I will assert with some confidence that no regular poster on ENworld has more system mastery with Rolemaster than I do - I GMed it for 20 years, and some of my players were hardcore rules people (PBM game winners, two Austrasian M:tG champions, etc). That doesn't mean I didn't change some rules. There are some aspects of Rolemaster, such as the Evil Cleric Dark Channels spell list, and the Sorcerer Flesh Destruction spell list, that are just broken (I assume in those two cases on the assumption that only NPCs will use them).

One indicator of rules mastery is understanding the effect that the rules are having on a game, and deciding whether or not you like it. And, if you don't, ascertaining how the rule can be changed to end the problem.

There's a difference between "can't handle" and "doesn't want to handle". If the game throws up essentially rock/paper/scissor options for encounter building - eg the PC wins unless the encounter includes a dominator or hold-er, in which case the GM wins - that's not an issue of "can't handle". It's an issue of "how can I change the rules to help guarantee more interesting encounters".

Empirate said:

Sure, there are a few extremely broken and atrociously badly/open-endedly worded things in D&D, but the stacking rules isn't one of them.

Click to expand...

How do you know? What's your measure for broken? For me, one measure for a rule being problematic is that it produces unhappy play experience.

Here's another example from Rolemaster: the Intuitions spell, which gives visions of what will happen in the immediate future if you take a certain action. At mid-to-high levels it is trivial to get effectively at will access to that spell (either from spell points or items). Which has the result that the players don't have their PCs do anything without casting Intuitions first. It also gives rise to strange corner case rules, like what effect is had on the vision if someone who you will interact with in the immediate future is under scrying protection.

Is this spell broken? I think it is - I banned it from my RM games. The current line editor doesn't - he has written sections in rulebooks (eg The Mentalism Companion) explaining in detail how it works.

Stacking has always been an issue in D&D. 4e is much stricter on stacking than 3E/PF, but still has problems - eg some people think the "item bonus to damage" magic items are a problem for the game, because they crowd out other more interesting items from those slots.

There's nothing unreasonable about someone judging that the magic AC stacking rules create an option for ACs to go to high, and changing them back to their AD&D equivalents. As I mentioned upthread, the game doesn't mandate that PCs have magic bonuses to AC in all the stacking categories, which is to say that the game appears to assume that your PC will play fine even if you have fewer AC items and more other sorts of items. So changing the stacking rules in the way I've described shouldn't cause any mechanical malfunction.

Empirate said:

And again, "if the game is meant to be viable etc." - is meant by whom? Designer's intention? Then why were the stacking rules implemented the way they were?

Click to expand...

Maybe they made a mistake. It's not as if D&D, just like most other RPGs, doesn't have a long history of design mistakes having been made!

Empirate said:

I think they work exactly the way they're "meant" to, and the possibility of getting very high AC, or very high saves, is just part of an open-ended design philosophy, which I very much condone.

Click to expand...

It doesn't strike me as having anything to do with open-ended design. We're talking here about the game maths, not the game scope. If the game permitted you to reduce your PC's hit points as a trade for increasing your PC's armour class - or vice versa - it would be mathematically more open-ended, but I don't see any reason to think that would make it a better game.

And I don't understand the ingame aspect either. What is the difference between a luck bonus, a sacred bonus and a deflection bonus to AC, as far as the fiction is concerned? How do the gods protect you, other than by deflecting attacks. (I guess they could make you tougher, but then that would be an enhancement bonus!) And how does luck help you, other than turning hits into misses by deflecting them?

As for stacking enhancement bonuses, how come an item that enhances my skin stacks with an item that enhances my metal shirt stacks with an item that enhances my shield but doesn't stack with an item that enhances my hair (it protects me from head strikes!) or my vest (it interposes another layer of magic between my metal shirt and my skin) or whatever else is fictionally conceivable but mechanically forbidden?

I think I know the answer. My best guess is that the various bonus categories were invented keeping in mind primarily spells, and a desire to preserve the traditional stacking rules for spells like Bless, Prayer, Barkskin etc, plus the traditions around weapons, armour and shields, and the implications of allowing the new bonus descriptors to be extended to permanent magic items and be stacked simply weren't thought through.

Whether or not one likes the game that results is of course a matter of taste. You may condone it as much as you like, but that doesn't show that the OP - whose tastes may differ from yours - doesn't have a reason to change the stacking rules.

I can get behind your stance on this, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], now that you present it in a little more differentiated way. If I understand correctly, your point is: if you as a DM get the feeling that a certain rule is causing a problem in your game, why not just go ahead and change the rule? As a long-standing DM I must admit I do this all the time.

However, that is not the only approach I think can work. Changing a rule in a complex mechanic environment like that presented by D&D always strikes me as a last resort - the consequences are far-reaching and will affect aspects of your game you might not think about at the time of changing the rule in question.

One thing I like to do before applying rules changes, especially if they nerf a particular player's preference in building his character, destroying part of the rules fundament on which that player is relying, is look at my own expectations: why am I having a problem with this rule? Is it because I have certain expectations that are frustrated by it, or is it because the rule causes 'objectively' undesirable effects? Are my expectations thoroughly 'justified', and in what ways do they conflict with the expectations of my players? Is there really a rules 'problem', in the sense of everybody having less fun due to this rule, or am I the only one feeling less than good about it?

In other words, I'd think long and hard about what other aspects of my game I can change before I'd change a rule that a) might be there for a good reason, and b) at least one of my players is depending on for (part of) their fun.


I think the stacking rules in general shouldn't cause a game real problems at all. They can be used to create certain unbalanced effects, if a lot of investment is made. But other parts of D&D are much more prone to this (save-or-die/save-or-suck mechanisms, everything fooling around with the action economy, the openendedness of high-level magic, planar anything).

Your point of "there's a difference between 'can't handle' and 'doesn't want to handle'" is a convincing one - in general. But in my personal opinion the stacking rules, or high-AC PCs for that matter, ought to be handle-able without breaking a sweat really. Not wanting to handle them is therefore purely a matter of personal preference. The OP asked for our help in handling a perceived problem, so I assume s/he wants to handle it, not handwave it out of existence.

I really don't think the guy's equipment is that bad; it's just hyper-specialised. He has none of the miscellaneous trinkets that make the game fun. No Ring of Feather Fall, no Ring of Tasting Bad, no Belt of Strength, no Portable Hole...

The party are 8th level, so the BBEGs are going to be L12 or so. Such a BBEG could easily have a Ring of Spell Storing with a Disjunction in it. Zap the whole party to keep it fair. Twice, if necessary. (And that's less of an expense than a Stone Golem.) Be sure to foreshadow it somehow. And if they keep the ring, maybe they find that it actually does Disjunction 3 / decade but all the charges have been used and the charge will come back when they get to L17 or so but it was stolen from an apprentice of the Royal Vizier and he would really like it back...

As an alternative try adventures where the players are out of their armour. They're not going to wear their armour to the hunt, are they? (Make sure he's glad he's got his Ring of Natural Armour!) And his sword isn't going to be much use hunting wild boar - you use spears. Speaking of spears, mooks should be attacking him with reach weapons like spears so they can Aid Another without being swatted.

And is he really running - well, clanking - around town in all that armour? Remind him how hot it is, how bad his sweat smells, how everyone recoils...

Beyond that, this is really part of D20; it's just that it's hit now. A medium level character with medium-level magic armour is going to be pretty much impervious to mooks. If you want mooks to be effective, you've got to cut down on the AC boosts or come up with ways for them to be competitive.

[MENTION=78958]Empirate[/MENTION], thanks for your reply.

Look at the post between ours: it suggests the use of a Disjunction ring (ie a 9th level spell!) to solve the problem.

So my suggestion is: think about changing the stacking rules (either de facto, via gentlemen's agreement, or de jure); talk it through with the players; let them rebuild their PCs to the extent that is required to give effect to any gentlemen's agreement or rules change.

Versus: as a GM, without discussing it with the players, introduce an item with just about as powerful an effect as is possible within the game so as to destroy the stacking items.

Which is a better way of handling problems with stacking? Obviously it depends on the group, but I think my way - recognise the rules problem for what it is and talk about how to change the game framework or the approach to PC building so as to dea with it - is less likely to produce conflict or resentment at the table than an approach which looks to me like adversarial GMing, and leaves the player with nothing to show for all those invested resources but a handful of ash-that-once-was-items.

Alright, thanks for all the replies guys. I wish I had the time to reply to all of them, but I don't really. All I can say is some good points have been made, both about the nature of the system, how to make it less of a problem, and how to fix the issue of a problematic character.

Now we have played a couple of sessions lately, where there has been no mooks involved. Naturally, the Fighter has not shone. In fact, he was fairly useless in the first fight against a Bone Devil, but then again the entire party was Feared at some point against them.

In the second go, the spellcasters of course shone. They were prepared, had spells to deal with the enemy, used tactics etc. Suddenly the devils were not so badass. The fighter changed tactics. He used rage and grapple, not even bothering to draw his shield and sword. He took hits - plenty of them actually, as his AC dropped alot lower than normal, enabling the devils to actually hit them - which made them want to attack him rather than just focusing on the party wizard, rogue, Magus and even Cleric.

I think he has understood himself that being untouchable can be a definite drawback when tanking, as the enemy simply ignores him, hits him with Will saves, and focuses on the more squishy party. As the rest of the party manages to boost their AC with their own items (and as the Wizard is typically invisible or otherwise hard to attack), his build should be less and less of a problem. The Magus easily outperforms him on damage, the wizard on usability, the cleric on healing and usability, and even the Rogue (who also shines in investigation and social encounters) can perform and even outperform him as long as he gets his flanking.

All in all it's not so great a problem - mooks will be mooks. I will use some of the tips here to help them make nuisance, but mooks shouldn't be the only enemy anyway.

Although the campaign is very human-focused, the rest of the game will focus mainly on making moral choices, fighting against their formal allies etc.