HELP! Avenger issue

[Ryujin]

I don't necessarily "want" to do this, but I believe if I follow the process of intelligent monsters and start
a) ignoring him (and the defenders for that matter) with attacks vs. AC
b) start focusing on other more squishy targets
c) redirect F/R/W attacks to him (and the defenders - when there are mobs with those attack types present)
then I'm sure he will find he doesn't like his build for one of those reasons. Either he will dislike being hit so frequently by the F/R/W attacks, or he will dislike that he never gets to use his Censure of Retribution because I don't attack him with monsters other than his mark.

The player in question likes to hog the spotlight as much as possible. If I only use monsters that attack AC then he gets what he wants and I get 3 party members laying on the ground because I focused fire on them. My problem really is not so much that I can't hit him, but the other issues I'll have if I ignore him. I just need to knock him down a peg or two is all. Problem is if I do that he'll feel inferior again and probably want to redesign.

Enemy controllers disable the defenders and, perhaps, the Avenger through the use of stun/daze/forced movement. After that the squishies are open for attack by the regs. Perfectly predictable, reasonable, and prudent actions for intelligent enemies.

 

[ArmoredSaint]

Mostly, I just think it's thematically wrong for a character in light armour to so easily surpass the AC of a character in heavy armour.

 

[Herschel]

It happened in previous editions too. Rogues with Dex beat fighters in chain pretty often.

 

[Nail]

Mostly, I just think it's thematically wrong for a character in light armour to so easily surpass the AC of a character in heavy armour.

This is an issue that was in 4e right out-of-the-gate - with PH1 - before supplements. Light armor is just better than heavy armor, so long as the PC has high Dex or Int. Note that I'm not claiming it's either good or bad. It's just the way the game is built.

The avenger class AC bonus just makes the issue harder to miss.

FWIW, consider that avengers are without a shield (thus no +2 AC, +2 Ref from Hvy shield), and pay a significant Ability Score price to get that last +1 AC from Hide. So the math works out to:

+3 AC (class benefit) = +1 AC (marginal benefit of hide over leather) + 2 AC/Ref (Hvy Shield)

Giving the Avengers a +3 class bonus to AC isn't as outlandish as you might think.

 

[keterys]

Is that factoring in their improved AC feat, though?

 

[Nail]

Is that factoring in their improved AC feat, though?

As I'm sure you know, the answer is: "nope".

 

[Herschel]

And so what if it doesn't?

Why should quick, nimble melee characters be terrible? Heavy armor went out of favor in history too as it got to a point of diminishing returns. Instead of letting their armor absorb hits, they stepped out of the way of them.

 

[Nail]

Heavy armor went out of favor in history too as it got to a point of diminishing returns. Instead of letting their armor absorb hits, they stepped out of the way of them.

Heh, heh.

Do you really want to discuss why heavy armor went out of favor in the Real World? (....and how that applies in any way to the fantasy world of 4e D&D?)

I think - if you pause to consider - a sensible answer would be: "Nope".

 

[Herschel]

Bring.
It.
On.

Firearm wielding Gnomes on Dinosaurs rock!

I'm just pointing out that there's more than one archtype for fighters that can be viable and for various reasons. Quick swordsmen scoring numerous hits vs. large swordsmen scoring one big hit both can do the same total "damage". They just avoid taking damage in different ways. Arms and armor were always a chess game. Look at Bannockburn. Heavy armor was not to the British favor. (Neither were heavy horse in mud)

For "realism", Weapons vs. Armor charts were probably best, but a pain in the butt from a game standpoint.

A fighter can spend feats to increase his AC too: Plate, two-weapon defense, etc.

 

[Nail]

Why should quick, nimble melee characters be terrible?

I'm just pointing out that there's more than one archtype for fighters that can be viable and for various reasons.

Good. Your second statement is better than your first, methinks.

I think most would agree that having multiple types of "melee-types" is a Good Thing (TM). ...but that's not the issue that ArmoredSaint brought up. His point is - I think - that a melee class with light armor has a better AC than a melee class with heavy armor. There's something a little jarring in that statement.


...and FWIW, it was the mud and the buried pots that did it, not the heavy armor of the English.