Anyone else notice the weirdness about Defenses?

[SadisticFishing]

Alright, let's compare.

Fortitute save: 1/2 level + con/str, +2 if fighter or +1 if paladin (probably).
Reflex save: 1/2 level + int/dex + shield, +2 if rogue or +1 if ranger (probably).
Will save: 1/2 level + cha/wis, +2 if wizard/warlock, +1 if paladin (probably).
AC: 1/2 level + dex + armor + shield

Your AC will be far higher than the other two. Especially since a +1 shield and +1 armor is equal to +2, and a +1 Will/Reflex/Fortitude item is only +1.. The disparity will only grow.

This means that anything that hits against AC is going to be grossly underpowered!

Have they said any way to counteract this yet? Other than this tiny thing (which could be massive if they don't fix it, needing to roll 4 higher to hit AC than Defenses would just be bad), I'm loving 4e...

It gets even worse once you add in the fact that a Fighter needs Constitution as well as Strength, whereas a Wizard can just buy 18 int and play an Eladrin or Tiefling, and be set for life.

Cheers,
SadFish

 

[mach1.9pants]

I suppose it will balance because:
You only add DEX/INT to AC in light armour
You add shield to both AC and Ref defences
At higher tiers different armour (e.g. spiritmail ) may give different AC bonus

 

[mrtomsmith]

Isn't that the point? Attack vs. AC is the default. If you have a power that is Attack vs. (something else), that often means you'll have a better to-hit than you normally would. So that power is a good one to use. Attacking psychically or stabbing around armor is a good thing.

Also, I'm not sure how true those rules are for monsters. The monsters we've seen do seem to generally follow this guideline (AC slightly higher than most other defenses), but not as strongly as PC stats (currently appear to) do.

 

[FadedC]

It's unclear exactly how magical enhancement bonuses on shields will work too. There has been some conflicting info on if they will actually provide an enhancement bonus that stacks with armor or not.

Your magic armor bonus will be balanced out by you magic neck slot bonus. Assuming your armor + and your amulet/neck + grow at the same rate there should never be any more of a disparity then at level 1. As you note though AC is higher then other defences. Some of this may be balanced out by the fact that weapons get a hit bonus ranging from 1 to 3 while spells do not.

As a final note, based on everything I have read from D&D experience it sounds like the wizard needs constitution just as much as the fighter if not more. But it does hurt the fighter a bit to have to stick 2 good stats into scores that compete for the same defence.

 

[BASHMAN]

Isn't that the point? Attack vs. AC is the default. If you have a power that is Attack vs. (something else), that often means you'll have a better to-hit than you normally would. So that power is a good one to use. Attacking psychically or stabbing around armor is a good thing.

Also, I'm not sure how true those rules are for monsters. The monsters we've seen do seem to generally follow this guideline (AC slightly higher than most other defenses), but not as strongly as PC stats (currently appear to) do.

The monsters don't follow the same rules. There are "patterns" but no hard & fast rules for what a monster's defenses will be. I have seen level 3 Solo Brute with base of 17 on all defenses before stat & half level were added, and I've seen level 11 Solo Brutes with defenses of 11 before adding stat & half level.

In GENERAL-- Brutes have low defense numbers, a base average of 10 (I think the white dragon being the MAJOR exception), Soldiers are a bit higher all around, with base numbers starting around 12, and increasing every few levels. So level 1-4 soldier = base 12, 5-8 = base 13, 9-12 = base 14, 13-16= baee 16, etc (again these are guesses based on observations of patterns that were also rife with exceptions). I haven't really done much analyisis of Skirms, Skulks, or Artillery yet on this front-- but they tend to be less than the soldier (skirmishers seem to be second highest, Skulks have good reflex, Controllers have good will, etc). Again-- no rules-- just patterns.

 

[keterys]

I'd suggest against really counting on any of the DoD mini cards for defenses, hit points, etc in comparisons, fwiw.

In general, AC is one of the highest if not the highest and an attack that targets another defense has an easier time hitting. Of course, at base consideration weapons get a proficiency bonus which helps overcome the AC bonus while casters do not get this bonus.

It seems exceedingly unlikely that you get enhancement bonus to AC via both armor and shields in terms of the basic math of the system, especially since they said otherwise.

So all defenses and AC scale at the same rate, AC just gets a leg up for many creatures (though not cloth casters) and in some cases the proficiency bonuses for weapons equal or exceed this leg up (leather and/or hide, depending on the weapon).

Shields are a pretty major bonus to both AC and Reflex, all told.

 

[KidSnide]

Alright, let's compare.

Fortitute save: 1/2 level + con/str, +2 if fighter or +1 if paladin (probably).
Reflex save: 1/2 level + int/dex + shield, +2 if rogue or +1 if ranger (probably).
Will save: 1/2 level + cha/wis, +2 if wizard/warlock, +1 if paladin (probably).
AC: 1/2 level + dex + armor + shield

Your AC will be far higher than the other two. Especially since a +1 shield and +1 armor is equal to +2, and a +1 Will/Reflex/Fortitude item is only +1.. The disparity will only grow.

This means that anything that hits against AC is going to be grossly underpowered!

Have they said any way to counteract this yet? Other than this tiny thing (which could be massive if they don't fix it, needing to roll 4 higher to hit AC than Defenses would just be bad), I'm loving 4e...

Attacks against AC are normally weapon attacks, those attacks will typically involve a proficiency bonus that IIRC is usually +2 or +3. My analysis is that cloth armor wearers are unusually vulnerable to weapon attacks because the proficiency bonus just makes it easier to hit them. Light armor wearers find that their armor bonus roughly balances out the proficiency bonus, making them no more or less vulnerable to weapons than any other attack. Heavy armor wearers get a better armor modifier (even considering the loss of the Dex/Int bonus) and are, therefore, have particularly good defenses against weapon attacks.

As to the +1 shield combined with +1 armor, it is unclear how that is supposed to work. The earlier Design & Development article stated that shields don't grant an armor bonus, a statement that seems to be contradicted by the DDXP items. It would be a little weird to think that those items don't stack, but I tend to think that there will be something that prevents armor + shield from advancing at a radically different rate than the other modifiers. It is hard to imagine that WotC re-figured that math and then made such a large oversight.

 

[Voss]

Something to keep in mind- attacks against the defenses, rather than AC, appear to have smaller bonuses- weapon attacks on the sample pcs were getting proficiency bonuses, whereas magical attacks were not. That covers a lot of the difference.

 

[Lord Sessadore]

I think, what with the unification of the mathematical model behind D&D for 4e, it would be reasonable to assume that magic enhancement bonuses on defenses won't stack. For example, +3 armor and +2 shield gives you the same result as non-magic armor and +3 shield. I predict the same for the other defenses: I doubt a +x Fort/Ref/Will item will stack with a +y shield for the Ref defense.

I don't really have anything to base this on, except that I think it makes the most sense for what they've stated their design goals as.

 

[Scrollreader]

It's also worth noting that the only striker (that we know of) who has no way to target an alternative defense (the ranger) has much better accuracy bonuses on his powers than other characters. This part of why I'm not one of the people going "+10 to hit? OMGWTFBBQ" Really, I do think AC is going to be the highest defense for armored characters, and I don't see a problem with this, especially since every class that is designed to be able to damage them, has a way (either an alternate save, or a high sccuracy, or whatever)