Light Armour Optimisation--a Little Too Much?

[Rystil Arden]

I shall inform the creators of Weapon Focus, so that they may correct their onerous balance issue immediately.

Weapon Focus is a bit of a distractor here, as using multiple sorts of weapons is useful in 3.5 (ranged, melee, and usually one of each damage type) whereas there is no such need for multiple types of armour. Additionally, Weapon Focus actually is the baseline.

This one boils down to opinion, I guess. I, for one, feel that being able to strike your foe while not subjecting yourself to a full attack (or Aoo from that foe) is far superior to a couple of points of AC.

You are subject to AoOs from every other foe, and you also deny yourself a full attack. I will admit that this can boil down to a wash though.

+1 more armor bonus is "far far far superior"? I find that humorous at best, but again, I guess it is a matter of opinion.

Double the effect against everything. The fact that you so readily discount the fact that Dodge only applies against one target is perplexing. If anything, this may be the crux of our disconnect--this is a HUGE HUGE HUGE deal, and you seem to think it is nothing.

Opinion, and one I do not share, obviously.

See directly above. I don't think I know anyone who shares your opinion, though if you think you know others who do, feel free to ask that question on the rules forum (let's not try to bend it though--just ask "Which is better: +1 Dodge Bonus to AC against one target or a flat +1 increase to Armour Bonus to AC against everything". Surely it is true that +1 Dodge is very slightly better than +1 Armour, but +1 Dodge against 1 target is clearly inferior to +1 Armour. You might have a case if it was deflection.

I don't see where I did, could you please point out where I did?

Most certainly so:

I only find it interesting because you've chosen to abandon what I think is the only defensible point of the feat (which is "hopefully nobody hits 24 Dex and breaks it").

Hoping something doesn't get "broken" is hardly defensible. It's true that a significant majority of LEW characters are unlikely to get a Dex that high, however.

 

[IcyCool]

Actually, you are indeed calling me names here, as you've left me with an either/or fallacy between being ignorant or trying to lie to make your feat look worse I choose neither--you are ignoring the point of the new feats I made. You've nitpicked to claim that no comparison can be made between any feats and your feat unless they are exactly the same feat moved into a different ability score and roll structure. I disagree--it is patently untrue that they can't be compared.

No, in fact I did not. I can see where you might take offense to what I did say, which is why I noted that it was not my intent to offend. My apologies if you took offense anyway.

As to your repeated assertion that your feats are comparable, please tell me if this is a true statement:

Light Armor Optimization grants a +1 dodge bonus against one opponent (which you designate/change on your round), and if you have a 24 Dex, it grants you an additional +1 dodge bonus.

I understand that there is no direct comparison with other feats, but you are apparently intentionally making a blatantly flawed comparison to attempt to prove your position.

To help here, I'll actually weaken Smarty-Pants Spell Focus again (it was already weaker compared to Spell Focus than LAO is compared to Dodge). Here goes (The theme in the edit is to show you why you can't claim that an obvious choice for someone taking the feat (for instance, light armour is an obvious choice for anyone taking the LAO feat) can possibly balance making it stronger than the existing feat) :

Vaarsuvius's Spell Focus:
Benefit: Choose a school of magic. If that school is Evocation, add +1 to the Difficulty Class for all saving throws against spells from the school of magic you select. Otherwise, you get nothing.

Special: You also gain an additional +1 bonus to DC if you have 24 or higher Int and the school you chose was Evocation.

That actually seems to be a bit better of a comparison. It is still a bit better than LAO, because the eventual +2 to AC from LAO is really a +1 to Touch and Regular AC, and a +1 to Regular and Flat-footed AC, whereas the +2 DC boost is useable in all situations where you are casting an Evocation spell.

 

[Rystil Arden]

No, in fact I did not. I can see where you might take offense to what I did say, which is why I noted that it was not my intent to offend. My apologies if you took offense anyway.

As to your repeated assertion that your feats are comparable, please tell me if this is a true statement:

Light Armor Optimization grants a +1 dodge bonus against one opponent (which you designate/change on your round), and if you have a 24 Dex, it grants you an additional +1 dodge bonus.

I understand that there is no direct comparison with other feats, but you are apparently intentionally making a blatantly flawed comparison to attempt to prove your position.



That actually seems to be a bit better of a comparison. It is still a bit better than LAO, because the eventual +2 to AC from LAO is really a +1 to Touch and Regular AC, and a +1 to Regular and Flat-footed AC, whereas the +2 DC boost is useable in all situations where you are casting an Evocation spell.

It is not a blatantly flawed comparison. In fact, it is not a flawed comparison at all. You are making an incorrect assumption that all analogy must be what Gentner labels 'Literal Similarity'. If you don't know what I mean, check out this paper on page 4 and pay attention to Figure 1.

Oh, I also put up a poll about the other thing in the Rules Forum.

 

[IcyCool]

Assuming you disagree with the new feat, let's break it down step by step to show why VSF is weaker compared to SF than LAO is compared to Dodge:

I don't disagree with the new feat, but have my own breakdown to quickly run through:

1. SF is better than Dodge, as SF is applicable all the time, every time.

2. VSF is better than SF (Evocation) when you hit Int 24, otherwise it is equal.

3. VSF is better than LAO, for the reasons mentioned in my previous post.

4. So VSF is better than SF and LAO, but SF is better than Dodge, and LAO is better than Dodge when you hit Dex 24, otherwise it is (I value touch AC more than regular AC, so I'd be inclined to say better. But I'll waffle again and say that it could be considered roughly equivalent (if we do not count Dodge being a qualifier for the Spring Attack Feat Chain)).

 

[IcyCool]

Mithral Tower Shield

Which, barring Races of Stone, doesn't exist. (Tower Shields are made of wood).

 

[Rystil Arden]

I don't disagree with the new feat, but have my own breakdown to quickly run through:

1. SF is better than Dodge, as SF is applicable all the time, every time.

2. VSF is better than SF (Evocation) when you hit Int 24, otherwise it is equal.

3. VSF is better than LAO, for the reasons mentioned in my previous post.

4. So VSF is better than SF and LAO, but SF is better than Dodge, and LAO is better than Dodge when you hit Dex 24, otherwise it is (I value touch AC more than regular AC, so I'd be inclined to say better. But I'll waffle again and say that it could be considered roughly equivalent (if we do not count Dodge being a qualifier for the Spring Attack Feat Chain)).

We don't need to compare SF to Dodge. We're comparing LAO is to Dodge as VSF is to SF and finding that VSF is weaker compared to SF than LAO is compared to Dodge. That's the point of the analogy, not to say that LAO is stronger than VSF (we're not comparing these two at all). I think this is why you're making all these comments about 'blatantly making a flawed comparison'. It's not a flawed comparison. Rather, it seems your understanding of the comparison is flawed. This is why nearly all your points are breaking the analogy and comparing across boundaries.

 

[Rystil Arden]

IcyCool--You should probably vote in the poll or at least let me know if you do--I'm going to be surprised if it ever strays from 100% for option 2 (or *maybe* 1 or 2 people on option 3), so I'd like to know if the 1 person voting for option 1 is you.

 

[IcyCool]

Weapon Focus is a bit of a distractor here, as using multiple sorts of weapons is useful in 3.5 (ranged, melee, and usually one of each damage type) whereas there is no such need for multiple types of armour. Additionally, Weapon Focus actually is the baseline.

So in this one case, this feat, which applies a flat bonus for some characters all of the time, is balanced because ... why? (I must be missing something here, because you just said that this was bad, and now ...?)

You are subject to AoOs from every other foe, and you also deny yourself a full attack. I will admit that this can boil down to a wash though.

*shrug* I think getting full attacked is a bad trade for +2 AC. With the addition of a swarm of foes between you and your spring attack target (because, of course, spring attackers try to provoke as many Aoo as possible), then I'd call that situation a wash.

Double the effect against everything. The fact that you so readily discount the fact that Dodge only applies against one target is perplexing. If anything, this may be the crux of our disconnect--this is a HUGE HUGE HUGE deal, and you seem to think it is nothing.

I have not discounted that Dodge only applies against one target, could you point out where I said that? It is the only reason that I think that Dodge isn't "far far far superior" to LAO for characters with less than 24 Dex.

See directly above. I don't think I know anyone who shares your opinion, though if you think you know others who do, feel free to ask that question on the rules forum (let's not try to bend it though--just ask "Which is better: +1 Dodge Bonus to AC against one target or a flat +1 increase to Armour Bonus to AC against everything".

Sounds like fun.

Surely it is true that +1 Dodge is very slightly better than +1 Armour, but +1 Dodge against 1 target is clearly inferior to +1 Armour. You might have a case if it was deflection.

Slightly better than +1 Armor? No. Signifi "Far far far superior".

Most certainly so:

And again, I fail to get my meaning accross. I agree that it isn't a vaild arguement. But you said that I was using it there. Where was I using that arguement?

 

[Rystil Arden]

So in this one case, this feat, which applies a flat bonus for some characters all of the time, is balanced because ... why? (I must be missing something here, because you just said that this was bad, and now ...?)

Two reasons--one, it is significantly suboptimal in 3.5 to refuse to switch to ranged (or melee) weapons or to different damage types when needed. Two, Weapon Focus is already the baseline, so your argument is irrelevant. It's fine to keep a some-characters-all-of-the-time feat as long as it isn't more powerful. Since it's the baseline, this is the case.

*shrug* I think getting full attacked is a bad trade for +2 AC. With the addition of a swarm of foes between you and your spring attack target (because, of course, spring attackers try to provoke as many Aoo as possible), then I'd call that situation a wash.

That isn't the trade. You're also giving up your own full attack in addition to +2 AC.

I have not discounted that Dodge only applies against one target, could you point out where I said that? It is the only reason that I think that Dodge isn't "far far far superior" to LAO for characters with less than 24 Dex.

You appear to have discounted it. If you haven't how can you possibly claim that Dodge's AC bonus is *better* than a +1 armour bonus against all attackers?

Sounds like fun.

Note--I already did it, you don't have to

Slightly better than +1 Armor? No. Signifi "Far far far superior".

I think you vastly overestimate Touch compared to flat-footed then. Most attacks apply to either, so the difference is minimal.

And again, I fail to get my meaning accross. I agree that it isn't a vaild arguement. But you said that I was using it there. Where was I using that arguement?

It was your point #4 a ways back.

 

[IcyCool]

We don't need to compare SF to Dodge. We're comparing LAO is to Dodge as VSF is to SF and finding that VSF is weaker compared to SF than LAO is compared to Dodge.

Well, we aren't finding that at all. YOU may be finding that, but as I pointed out in my quick breakdown, there are some important differences that you are ignoring. Small, but important.

I think this is why you're making all these comments about 'blatantly making a flawed comparison'. It's not a flawed comparison. Rather, it seems your understanding of the comparison is flawed. This is why nearly all your points are breaking the analogy and comparing across boundaries.

*sigh* Right then, after reading the page 3 and 4 of your quoted document (I'll finish it this evening, in case I'm missing something vital), I suppose I should say, "flawed analogy" or rather, your analogy is not specific enough. We can't make a literal comparison (my bad for using the wrong term there), but we need to strive for as close to it as possible. There is a place for analogy, it is an important part of the learning process, and it helps us get a handle on difficult concepts. But I think the problem is that perhaps you are simplifying your analogies a bit much. Or perhaps I am not simplifying enough (although as we are trying to be as accurate as possible, I think over simplifying is a bad thing in this case). We could, after all, compare this feat to Toughness. They are both feats, are they not? But this feat seems clearly overpowered compared to Toughness. Your analogy is much closer, in a literal sense, than the toughness analogy. But while you find that satisfactory, I do not (for the reasons stated above).