Light Armour Optimisation--a Little Too Much?

[Rystil Arden]

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.



*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).

Hmm...interesting. I think the problem with your Toughness point is that I'm not trying to compare Dodge and SF, nor would I be trying to compare Dodge and Toughness if we made a Toughness comparison some way down the line. In order to normalise for the effects that feats are not equal, we're not comparing Dodge to SF at all. Rather, we are comparing the amount that LAO is better than Dodge to the amount VSF is better than SF, without directly comparing Dodge to SF. Why am I proposing this comparison, though? That's because I can't understand why you won't reject LAO but you will reject VSF (for the record, I would also reject VSF, so I'm not seeing why the common-ground we share here is not enough to lead to common ground on the other)

As to the document, I dredged it up because I thought it would be more instructive than saying something like "I study analogy for a living", since that comment is not really helpful at all and just sounds erudite, whereas the document should at least be instructive to the situation at hand.

 

[IcyCool]

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.

Well, the wording for option 3 makes me think that anyone choosing it doesn't understand how AC works, but I'm fairly certain I know what you meant by it (I just hope others do, or your results will likely be skewed). I keep waffling back and forth between the Dodge bonus being superior and the two of them being equivalent. I think that I've finally settled into the "equivalent" camp, and that is what I voted in the poll.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Well, the wording for option 3 makes me think that anyone choosing it doesn't understand how AC works, but I'm fairly certain I know what you meant by it (I just hope others do, or your results will likely be skewed). I keep waffling back and forth between the Dodge bonus being superior and the two of them being equivalent. I think that I've finally settled into the "equivalent" camp, and that is what I voted in the poll.

I guess you play in very different games than I do. Barring something like Wraithstrike (which breaks the game four ways to Sunday), I would expect that something like 80% of attacks would use normal AC and neither touch nor flat-footed. Assuming a group of four on both sides, Dex being equal there is an 80% chance to be flat-footed for at least one attack per fight (likely more). There are also some pretty sure ways to keep people flat-footed if you need them to be (Almost nobody has 5 ranks in Balance, and without that you are flat-footed while balancing even if you make the check). Touch Attacks are only made by casters, who could also just ignore AC altogether and go with a save spell, and maybe people using special manoeuvres. This would occur a bit more often than being flat-footed in my book, true, but nowhere near as much as being possibly attacked by multiple opponents (even if only one guy attacks you, if it isn't who you expect, Dodge fails to deliver).

As to option 3, you read it correctly.

 

[IcyCool]

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.

So, is every (we'll just use Core) feat that provides a consistent benefit to some characters is irrelevant? Or just those that don't exist alongside a similar feat?

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

Sorry, I should have said "an additional +2 AC". You had already mentioned giving up a full attack, so I didn't see a need to restate something I agreed with (i.e. using Spring Attack means not using a Full Attack).

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?

Things that target your Touch AC are to Things that target your normal AC as Nuclear weapons are to bullets. (Is that a good analogy, or is it too simple? )

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

Noted and voted.

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

And I think you vastly undervalue Touch AC compared to regular (or even flat-footed). But then, the words "I think" denotes opinion in both our posts. Opinions which, at this point, are probably unlikely to change.

It was your point #4 a ways back.

Do you mean this one?

4. In the instance that a character with LAO is wearing armor that gets the increased Max Dex but does not have the Dexterity to take advantage of that, LAO is not superior to Dodge. Edit - I value a Touch AC increase more than an Armor bonus increase. (Removed waffling opinion).

If that's not the point you mean, then could you point me to it? If it is, how am I saying that the feat is balanced because few people will have a high dex? Maybe you misread?

 

[IcyCool]

Why am I proposing this comparison, though? That's because I can't understand why you won't reject LAO but you will reject VSF (for the record, I would also reject VSF, so I'm not seeing why the common-ground we share here is not enough to lead to common ground on the other)

Ah, that's where your confusion lies. I don't think I'd reject VSF. I stated that it's a bit on the strong side (moreso, I think, than LAO). Me, I'd love to have it for a conjurer, but alas, it is only for Evocation.

As to the document, I dredged it up because I thought it would be more instructive than saying something like "I study analogy for a living", since that comment is not really helpful at all and just sounds erudite, whereas the document should at least be instructive to the situation at hand.

Well, I appreciate the effort, and I'll assume that the feeling of condescension that I'm getting from that comment is entirely in my mind. I really do appreciate you taking the time to "dredge that up", though.

I'm just not convinced that analogy is the right tool for this task.

 

[Rystil Arden]

So, is every (we'll just use Core) feat that provides a consistent benefit to some characters is irrelevant? Or just those that don't exist alongside a similar feat?

They have to exist alongside a similar feat, and they have to be lacking a significant opportunity cost. In the case of Weapon Focus, never using another weapon is a signficant opportunity cost because weapons tend to need to be shifted for different situations. Light armour, on the other hand, if the main armour of the character, is never switched for something else to help in a certain situation unless the situation is extremely contrived.

Sorry, I should have said "an additional +2 AC". You had already mentioned giving up a full attack, so I didn't see a need to restate something I agreed with (i.e. using Spring Attack means not using a Full Attack).

That's making a pretty strong assumption that your own full attack is of low value compared to your opponent's. Based on this and other comments, do you expect to have a lot of "Party vs One Huge Guy" fights?

Things that target your Touch AC are to Things that target your normal AC as Nuclear weapons are to bullets. (Is that a good analogy, or is it too simple? )

Some of them are. There are also things that target your flat-footed AC that are also nuclear weapons (Sneak Attacks from an Archer Rogue).

Do you mean this one?


Quote:
Originally Posted by IcyCool
4. In the instance that a character with LAO is wearing armor that gets the increased Max Dex but does not have the Dexterity to take advantage of that, LAO is not superior to Dodge. Edit - I value a Touch AC increase more than an Armor bonus increase. (Removed waffling opinion).



If that's not the point you mean, then could you point me to it? If it is, how am I saying that the feat is balanced because few people will have a high dex? Maybe you misread?

Yup, that is the one. You brought up the 'under 24 Dex' case in that. If you agree with me that we cannot in good conscience balance it hoping for the under 24 Dex case, then it shouldn't be a point and we should assume 24 Dex, in which case, it is definitely more powerful.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Ah, that's where your confusion lies. I don't think I'd reject VSF. I stated that it's a bit on the strong side (moreso, I think, than LAO). Me, I'd love to have it for a conjurer, but alas, it is only for Evocation.

Ohhhh, I see. Never mind then! As to Conjuration, I didn't pick that because it lacks many spells with saves.

Well, I appreciate the effort, and I'll assume that the feeling of condescension that I'm getting from that comment is entirely in my mind. I really do appreciate you taking the time to "dredge that up", though.

I'm just not convinced that analogy is the right tool for this task.

Yeah, I was trying hard not to be condescending--I realised if I just brought in experience in the matter (or linked a similar paper that was easier to find but less relevant to point out my name in the Acknowledgements section) it would be both condescending and unhelpful, so I hope linking the Gentner paper (still my favourite intro paper on Analogy) was neither

 

[IcyCool]

I guess you play in very different games than I do.

Well, regular fullplate and tower shields are not bad options in the games I've been in, and in all the time I've been playing 3.0 and 3.5, I have, to date, seen two Mithral Bucklers on spellcasters. So yeah, different strokes.

There are also some pretty sure ways to keep people flat-footed if you need them to be (Almost nobody has 5 ranks in Balance, and without that you are flat-footed while balancing even if you make the check).

Ah, but are you considered to be balancing while standing still, or while moving through? (I don't really want to start that discussion over though, check the rules forum for that. I think it was the thread that made Jeff Wilder's head explode).

Touch Attacks are only made by casters, who could also just ignore AC altogether and go with a save spell, and maybe people using special manoeuvres.

Spellcasters and Grapplers. These two will kill you before you can blink if your Touch AC is crap. Grapplers might do even if you have terrific Touch AC. Trippers are less of a concern, but still worth considering. Incorporeal touchers, and special touch attacks are somewhere between Spellcasters/Grapplers and Trippers for me.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Well, regular fullplate and tower shields are not bad options in the games I've been in, and in all the time I've been playing 3.0 and 3.5, I have, to date, seen two Mithral Bucklers on spellcasters. So yeah, different strokes.

Ah, whereas I've never seen a spellcaster past level 10 or so who doesn't have one. And most had one by 7 or so.

Spellcasters and Grapplers. These two will kill you before you can blink if your Touch AC is crap. Grapplers might do even if you have terrific Touch AC. Trippers are less of a concern, but still worth considering. Incorporeal touchers, and special touch attacks are somewhere between Spellcasters/Grapplers and Trippers for me.

Right--casters and special manoevures. The incorporeal folks are a bit less common. and I'm sure you didn't mean literally Blink but if you can actually Blink, you have nothing to fear from Grapplers. I'll agree that Grapplers are always problematic, but there are fairly common precautions to make your immune to it. The big deal is definitely the spellcasters with touch attack spells.

 

[IcyCool]

They have to exist alongside a similar feat, and they have to be lacking a significant opportunity cost. In the case of Weapon Focus, never using another weapon is a signficant opportunity cost because weapons tend to need to be shifted for different situations. Light armour, on the other hand, if the main armour of the character, is never switched for something else to help in a certain situation unless the situation is extremely contrived.

So I suppose this would be a bad time to bring up Improved Natural Armor, eh?

That's making a pretty strong assumption that your own full attack is of low value compared to your opponent's. Based on this and other comments, do you expect to have a lot of "Party vs One Huge Guy" fights?

No, not alot of "One Huge Guy" fights, but a Spring attacking monk walloping the enemy spellcaster with a stunning fist is sure satisfying. And yes, I am assuming that, short of two-weapon rogues, your own full attack is of lower value compared to your opponent's. Most of the critters in the book have a better BAB than you, even if you are a fighter.

Some of them are. There are also things that target your flat-footed AC that are also nuclear weapons (Sneak Attacks from an Archer Rogue).

Yep, but after your flat-footed condition ends, the Touch AC nukes are still plenty useful.

Yup, that is the one. You brought up the 'under 24 Dex' case in that. If you agree with me that we cannot in good conscience balance it hoping for the under 24 Dex case, then it shouldn't be a point and we should assume 24 Dex, in which case, it is definitely more powerful.

It is important to include, partially for completeness, and partially to get an idea of what the feat will be like for the "general masses". If you are simply trying to balance this feat against Dodge for a character with 24 Dex, Mithral Chain, and LAO, well, you'll note I didn't argue against it being the better choice in that case. How it interacts with the non-extremes is important as well as how it interacts with the extremes. Where we differ, I think, is on whether the extreme "breaks" the feat. I do not think it does. For example, I do not look at Great Fortitude, see that it is significantly better for a class with poor Fort saves than anyone else, and think it is broken. (Overly simplistic analogy, and not intended to construe that you think Great Fortitude is broken).