Armor and Extended Rest

[AbdulAlhazred]

You appear to be contradicting yourself. Either AC 14 is ok, or it's not.

Oh yeah, it's ok if the player plays the game in a specific DM prescribed way where the PC is hiding in the back. Check. Got it. Using the cool blast power with an early init is not ok. Hang in the back Mr. Wizard. Don't use your cool power. The game designers think it is better to use ranged bursts instead of close blasts. Check. No, no. Don't ever worry about NPCs attacking from behind.

Don't come to my table. Your hang in the back Wizard with AC 14 would be toast sooner or later. In my game, every PC is attacked sooner or later with multiple attackers (and not just minions).

The reason is because there are x players at my table and every one of those players deserve to be in the encounter crunch spotlight some of the time. Not just the players playing defenders. In fact, AC is so important in my DM's campaign that even the Cavalier's warhorse has a first level equivalent AC of 23 (plus resistance). That works great with Mantle of Unity.

In my DM's mid-Paragon campaign, we rarely fight in smaller rooms (which would help my Ardent|Bard give out temp hit points by staying in the middle). It's often in areas 15x15 or larger. There is no place to hang in the back because there is no back. We often get attacked from all sides. Even if we encounter the foes from in front, it's real easy to melee attack the back PCs when there are not walls in the way because moving closer diagonally away and then diagonally back takes up the same amount of movement. Ranged attacks are even easier. And defenders are super easy to avoid. Which is part of the reason why in 2 campaigns and 15 PCs, we only have one standard non-hybrid defender. Course the main reason is because we have 8 strikers and 1 hybrid striker. The game has evolved, or at least at our table, to be 60% striker parties since heavy striker parties survive easier and strikers are easier for many people to play.

Sure at level one, PCs fight in rooms in towns and small dungeons and such because they are almost always fighting medium or smaller sized foes. But even by mid-heroic, we find ourselves outdoors, in magnificent large caverns, at the top of gigantic towers, etc. with foes coming in from all sides, flying, teleporting, using ranged attacks. In order to allow large, huge, and even larger foes to attack the PCs, there has to be a ton of space and once that occurs, players can totally forget about "hanging in the back". The only time that can occur is if the PCs come through a doorway and the DM doesn't have more NPCs attacking from the rear. Then, low AC PCs can still hang in the back, but it's rare. Or it's at least rare if the DM tries to challenge his players.

Agreed. I would just say this. It is LESS critical for a wizard that is going to sit back at the back of the party to be holding a HIGH AC. At first level the PCs can expect to have most encounters where their opponents are limited enough that they can hold a line or control the situation, if they think carefully. Even then it won't happen all the time. The first fight I ever ran in 4e is pretty typical. Goblins holed up in an old manor with the PCs assaulting them (after waiting until half the goblins got good and drunk, players weren't dumb). Even so the Blackblade slipped out a window and backstabbed the dwarf that was holding the front door, and the big axe goblin came out a side door (which took him two rounds) and tried to hit them from the side. The defender was vital to keeping the situation under control, but most of the characters had to deal with one or two attacks before it was all over. By 13th level I recall that party fighting in the middle of a temple compound with enemies coming at them from 3 directions, a couple archers raining arrows on them from a wall, etc. EVERY character got attacked multiple times in that one, though again the warden tied town two tough enemies and the swordmage managed to keep the wizard up (the cleric OTOH went down hard even though she had a pretty good AC).

AC 14 starting for a wizard? It might be viable if the player is careful, but the problem is building like that is basically assuming you'll always be in control of the situation. At the very least a character built like that will be wise to pick up something like Shield right quick.

[MENTION=90057]Gondsman[/MENTION] The problem IMHO is you're just telling me what marking IS. I don't know that marking is a specific thing. Maybe in one case the dwarf is insulting the goblin's ancestry and getting them pissed at him. Maybe in another case it is just interfering with them and keeping them off balance, etc. One must also attribute SOME degree of tactical savvy to most monsters. Even animalistic creatures go after easy prey (and are pretty good at picking it out). Humanoids may not all be brilliant, but they're smart enough to survive and thus if attacking character X is good tactics then it is reasonable to assume they'll work that out at some point in the fight. I AGREE that RPing the monsters is what you're after as a DM, not 'winning' an idealized skirmish game. The monsters DO want to win though, and if the leader that is constantly debuffing them and standing the heavy hitters back up is the logical target, then you can pretty well assume there will be some attacks coming in on that character.

Ultimately I'd just like to say that a defender is doing an adequate job if they tie up one enemy thoroughly, do some steady damage, and manage to disadvantage the enemy to any appreciable degree on top of that. There are 5 PCs and nominally 5 monsters. It isn't up to the front line to hold them all back all of the time. They need to stop key attacks and shape the fight in favor of their side. That isn't at all the same as being a wall. It might be as simple as locking down an elite or getting in the face of a controller and messing up his chance to work his tricks. The wizard may very well have to survive on his own for a couple rounds, just not against everything the enemy has got. There are various ways to do that, and being a higher AC wizard is one. Being a really low AC wizard is just dicey. You really are counting on nothing unexpected happening, and I can guarantee when I'm running the game that's a bad guess (as the wizard that got ganked once by Phase Spiders learned really quickly).

 

[Gondsman]

Players have told me the opposite - that they hate DMs who try to pander to the players, fudge so they don't kill PCs, etc. And they've told me how much they appreciate my hard-ass DMing style.

Again you move away from the extent of the message. I'm only talking about house rules here. Ultimately the GM has to have a feel for the way the players like to play, how to keep them feeling challenged and happy. You don't TPK 8 year old's on their first game ever, but with older players, if there isn't at least the possibility of someone dieing (reinforced by character death every now and then) survival ceases to be rewarding.

If a Wizard-1 or similar PC is drawing multiple non-minion attacks in a single round, then either the DM is incredibly mean or something has gone horribly wrong with PC tactics

I agree that your stand in the front and blast on the first turn vs wolves is a bad tactic, but generally, any character should be able to take on two or three baddies in a round, minion swarms and bigger guys included. IMO tactics wise, the wizard is a minion smasher, that is what low damage AoE's are for and wizards get a lot of them, so he should spend early rounds reducing minions without necessarily provoking bosses. If he is consistently surrounded by 8 people, maybe that is a mean GM, but I'd say most of the time it is bad tactics

 

[S'mon]

You appear to be contradicting yourself. Either AC 14 is ok, or it's not.

Oh yeah, it's ok if the player plays the game in a specific DM prescribed way where the PC is hiding in the back. Check. Got it.

Good.

That's how WoTC designed the game - each role has its role, Wizards shouldn't try to tank. You can deviate from that if you like, via house rules etc.

 

[Ryujin]

Good.

That's how WoTC designed the game - each role has its role, Wizards shouldn't try to tank. You can deviate from that if you like, via house rules etc.

A Darklock can do a fair job of it though. It involves blowing away every minion on the board, via the ol' necrotic smoke rings, and then daring someone to hit you.

 

[S'mon]

A Darklock can do a fair job of it though. It involves blowing away every minion on the board, via the ol' necrotic smoke rings, and then daring someone to hit you.

The Warlock in my 4e Wilderlands game tanked very impressively last session. Warlocks seem a lot tougher than Wizards, though.

 

[Ryujin]

The Warlock in my 4e Wilderlands game tanked very impressively last session. Warlocks seem a lot tougher than Wizards, though.

With one point off of maximum possible INT and leather armour, I had a pretty good AC. Cursed a nearby minion, on the first round, which then was dropped incidentally by the Sword & Board Fighter. That cursed every opponent in a 5 square radius, which included 10 minions. Cursebite dropped 8 of those (lucky rolling), so I was a walking 8d8 landmine, that weakened the opponent if 12 or more damage was done. A reasonably effective roadblock.

 

[KarinsDad]

Good.

That's how WoTC designed the game - each role has its role, Wizards shouldn't try to tank. You can deviate from that if you like, via house rules etc.

Walking up and doing a Close Blast 5 when the game system has the spell in it means that Wizards ARE supposed to close blast foes. It's part of the game design.

Close blasting isn't tanking.

The fact remains that the party defender could have won initiative in your example, moved up and attacked, and the same result could have occurred, just that the defender could have died instead of the Wizard. I ran a Paladin|Warlock that had an AC of level+21 through level+27 depending on situation and the DM hit him a lot.

Or, the Wizard could have won initiative, used a Ranged Burst power like you suggested, and gotten smoked by 2 NPC Artillery and a Controller rolling high damage.

So yes, you just illustrated my point. Starting Wizard and Psion AC is too low to handle even a typical Wizard wins initiative (something that is also recommended by WotC) close blast 5 scenario that the designers planned for.

 

[S'mon]

The fact remains that the party defender could have won initiative in your example, moved up and attacked, and the same result could have occurred, just that the defender could have died instead of the Wizard.

Very unlikely though. The party tank is a Paladin, maybe not the greatest AC - he uses a greatsword AIR - but very tough.

Anyway weren't you complaining earlier about Defenders having better AC than Controllers?

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Wizards can have a nice AC if you build them that way. I had a 1st level Human Staff Wizard with leather armor proficiency and the superior weapon prof feat. She was wearing +1 leather armor and had a Guardian Staff so her ac was 19.

 

[KarinsDad]

Very unlikely though. The party tank is a Paladin, maybe not the greatest AC - he uses a greatsword AIR - but very tough.

Anyway weren't you complaining earlier about Defenders having better AC than Controllers?

Very unlikely? How many attacks did you do against the Wizard? It was 6 if IIRC.

Say that there are 6 +7 melee attacks against a second level PC in a single round (you had Elites, so +7 might be a bit light). This is equivalent to one NPC surviving the entire encounter until the last round and staying on his target, but you did it in a single round using APs. Defenders expect this kind of firepower once in a blue moon, Controllers do not. Same level damage anymore tends to be level+8 or 10 points at level two (assuming that the elites did not do more damage).

AC 15: 3.9 hits on average, 39 damage
AC 16: 3.6 hits on average, 36 damage
AC 17: 3.3 hits on average, 33 damage
AC 18: 3.0 hits on average, 30 damage
AC 19: 2.7 hits on average, 27 damage
AC 20: 2.4 hits on average, 24 damage
AC 21: 2.1 hits on average, 21 damage

So your AC 19 second level Paladin would have taken an average of 27 damage when he had probably about 34 hit points (give or take). Almost 3 attacks should have hit him out of 6 on average, but 4 hits (not too unlikely, ~20%) would have knocked him unconscious and 5 or 6 (~10%) would probably have killed him.

So sure, the odds of wiping out the AC 15 Wizard is in the high 90% range, but knocking out the Paladin with 6 attacks was about 20% and killing him outright was about 10%. The odds would be in the Paladin's favor, but a 30% chance of getting unconscious or killed is still very doable, especially if the earlier hits roll big damage and he goes unconscious before all of the foes have attacked. He too might get his throat ripped out when unconscious if one or two foes coup de grace him.

And what if it were not the Paladin, but another PC with an 18 or 17 defense getting attacked by 6 foes? You ragged on your Wizard player for playing in character and using his cool power in an appropriate situation. It wasn't a terrible tactical decision, it just turned out terrible. Any of your other PCs could have gotten wiped out because you threw 6 attacks (with APs) at a PC. If you are going to throw 6 attacks in round one at any PC, don't be surprised at the results and don't blame your player. You did this, not the player. There is no way to survive against a DM who does this because sooner or later, the DM's dice are going to go hot and no PC will withstand this amount of firepower.

And yes, I was pointing out that the delta at level one can often be 5 or 6 without feats whereas I consider 3 or 4 without feats more reasonable, especially for AC which is attacked more often than the other defenses.