Party AC difference

[KarinsDad]

Well, one thing is that characters that lag behind in AC should -probably- get the magic armor first. Given that +2 equipment's been available in parcels since level 2, there's no reason he should have only a +1.

It's not much of a difference, but that, plus leather armor proficiency makes a huge difference for sorcerers.

For a 5 PC group, the DM only hands out 4 magic item parcels per level. There's only 10 6th level or higher parcels total before acquiring level 6.

With the standard 5 +2 weapons/implements, 5 +2 armor, and 5 +2 neck items for the entire party, you are assuming that this PC should rate +2 magic armor before he rates +2 magic weapon/implement or +2 neck item or before the other PCs rate them. I just find the concept of the DM handing out magic items first based on who has the lowest AC or defense or to hit a bit metagamey.

This also does not allow for any magic items of level 6 or higher that are not the big 3, nor does it allow for many levels of playing with a cool +1 item before it is swapped out with a +2 item. For example, it will take 4 levels just to hand out the first 10 +1 items. If the DM hands out +1 armor to the Sorcerer at level one or two to handle the AC discrepency at lower levels, the Sorcerer won't be keeping the +1 amor long if he acquires +2 armor at level three, four or five.


As for Leather Armor proficiency, I absolutely dispise that feat tax. Although the game is playable without it, it's a pain in the butt. I play a Sorcerer over on LEB who did not take Leather Armor and she gets hit nearly every time a foe attacks her. Not that Leather would help too much with that, but it's still a design weakness.

I just don't think there should be any "must have" defensive feats in the game system.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

What's 'must have' about it? The character has a weak AC. OK, that's pretty much just the facts of life for that character. You can CHOOSE to take Leather Armor Proficiency and improve that a bit, or not. I'm guessing you got something for that feat which you feel is more important. Its a trade-off. No feat is absolutely must-have.

Personally I'm not sure what the problem is with a high variance in defenses. Just as a point of reference I went back to me 2e PHB and took a look at the saving throw chart. Some representative numbers look like

Poison/death rod/s/w pet/poly breath spell
Priest 1 10 14 13 16 15
Rogue 1 13 14 12 16 15
warrior 1 16 18 17 20 19
wizard 1 14 11 13 15 12
Priest 10 6 10 9 12 11
Rogue 10 11 10 10 14 11
warrior 10 8 10 9 9 11
wizard 10 13 9 11 13 10

The upshot is the variance at level 1 is 7 points max. Interestingly enough it actually shrinks from there in 2e. This is almost entirely the result of warriors saves going from abysmal at level 1 (might as well not bother to throw the dice abysmal) to being the best in the game at level 10. The variance on the same CHARACTER is at most 6 points (and aside from the priest death save is never more than 4). If you extend it on up to extreme levels then things diverge again as warriors rapidly outstrip everyone else at high levels.

Given that magic items rarely boost only one class of saves in 2e the result is pretty even for a given character, more so than with 4e. The variance between PCs CAN get as high as 10 or more with some pluses for items and some high ability score adjustments though, so I'm not seeing that as radically different.

AC OTOH has a MUCH higher variance in 2e. Starting AC for a wizard is pretty much likely to be 10. For a fighter it could easily be 4 and with some ability score variation we can easily get a variance of 7 or even 8 (and in theory 10!). This is a bit more than in 4e. Now advance to level 10 and its not that hard to see the wizard still around AC 5 and the fighter now down south of -2 somewhere and quite possibly -4. So realistically the variance can go from say 6 points at level 1 to 9+ at level 10.

Now, notice that the warrior is the prime beneficiary in ALL defense increases. Well, they needed it, but in effect if you aren't a fighter, paladin, or cleric in 2e you just better not get hit at 10th level and really don't want to get hit at lower levels either.

So really 4e seems to have pretty similar variation in NADs (saves basically) and less variation in AC by a good bit. I think this reflects the more dynamic combat design in 4e. Most older edition style combats really didn't envision anyone but the fighters and such taking melee hits on a regular basis. In 4e even a wizard should expect to be stuck with a goblin in his face now and then. If there is a problem in 4e it is more in NAD variation at higher levels. The thing is I just don't see it as a system design ISSUE but more as a level of freedom players have in 4e to set their own priorities. In 2e you had fixed saves and the best you could do was boost them all with an item pretty much. Nowadays you can pick and choose which ones to enhance, but there are trade offs.

Personally I think 4e overall deemphasises defenses at higher levels. Boosting them seems a bit too expensive for what you get. Maybe not a lot, but a bit. AC OTOH seems about right to me. It works. You can vary it a decent bit but the price of keeping it up is reasonable.

 

[Runestar]

You can CHOOSE to take Leather Armor Proficiency and improve that a bit, or not. I'm guessing you got something for that feat which you feel is more important. Its a trade-off. No feat is absolutely must-have.

Just as a druid in 3e could "choose" to take natural spell.

While there is certainly no one twisting your arm and forcing you to take that feat, the reality is that few other feats come close to replicating its benefits. So from an opportunity cost POV, you would be hard-pressed not to take it simply because it is that good (similar to pre-errata hide expertise).

I guess that at higher lvs, the onus is on leaders to boost the party's defenses to stratospheric heights as necessary. Not sure if the designers took this into account when designing monsters though.

 

[Nifft]

Just as a druid in 3e could "choose" to take natural spell.

While there is certainly no one twisting your arm and forcing you to take that feat, the reality is that few other feats come close to replicating its benefits. So from an opportunity cost POV, you would be hard-pressed not to take it simply because it is that good (similar to pre-errata hide expertise).

Nah, I gotta disagree with this comparison.

Leather Armor Prof is a fine feat for a Wizard, but if your party has competent Defenders, you don't need it. Wizards have enough "No." interrupt spells that you probably can get through a combat fine without much armor at all, if you can mostly stay out of melee and get away from melee reliably. (Did I mention competent Defenders?)

My Wizard seeks melee range, so I prioritized his AC, but that's not the only way to play a Wizard.

Cheers, -- N

 

[UngeheuerLich]

warrior 1 16 18 17 20 19

Are you sure you didn´t look at warrior 0 line?
I did this mistake quite often...

And as long as no status effects are carried with a vs-AC attack beeing hit 10% more often s not that terrible... there were editions where a single hit killed you and where you coudn´t increase your AC high enough to prevent that...

 

[KarinsDad]

Nah, I gotta disagree with this comparison.

Leather Armor Prof is a fine feat for a Wizard, but if your party has competent Defenders, you don't need it. Wizards have enough "No." interrupt spells that you probably can get through a combat fine without much armor at all, if you can mostly stay out of melee and get away from melee reliably. (Did I mention competent Defenders?)

My Wizard seeks melee range, so I prioritized his AC, but that's not the only way to play a Wizard.

If a Sorcerer or Wizard takes "No" interrupt spells, then he cannot take other miscellaneous spells.

So basically, unlike other classes that have decent AC (even a Cleric gets AC 16 for free at level 1), the AC 14 Wizard and Sorcerer have to either take feats or spells to fill in this hole. So your claim that they can take powes to fill in the hole instead of this feat is a bit weak. You are still recommending that they shore up this weakness.

As for competent defenders, not all foes come from one direction in narrow corridors. It's extremely easy in 4E to bypass a defender. That argument is completely invalid. Did I mention a lot fewer hit points for Wizards than most other classes?

The other classes do not have this AC deficit. Sorry, it's still a design flaw when the delta between best and worst AC on a D20 system at level one without taking feats or powers is 6.

 

[keterys]

It depends a bit on the party and the enemies it faces, but many casters do just fine by hanging out of combat and don't particularly need AC all that much.

That said, I still voted 4-5 myself. 6 doesn't bug me that much for a difference between the absolute best and absolute worst, but 7+ does.

 

[KarinsDad]

It depends a bit on the party and the enemies it faces, but many casters do just fine by hanging out of combat and don't particularly need AC all that much.

Not in our games. Every PC gets attacked nearly every encounter. There is no challenge if the Wizard or Sorcerer can hang out in the back and rarely be threatened.

That said, I still voted 4-5 myself. 6 doesn't bug me that much for a difference between the absolute best and absolute worst, but 7+ does.

I think 4 is best. That's 5 different ACs. That's plenty of variation. 6 delta is 7 different ACs.

It's not just AC. There are also hit points variations, surge variations, etc.

When the 6th level Wizard with 42 points gets attacked 3 times by foes doing 15 damage each and with a 70% chance to hit each, it's a lot more devastating (especially if a critical is rolled) than if the 55 hit point Paladin has the same 3 attacks with a 40% chance to hit.

 

[keterys]

Not in our games. Every PC gets attacked nearly every encounter. There is no challenge if the Wizard or Sorcerer can hang out in the back and rarely be threatened.

Like I said - depends on the party and its enemies. In a lot of cases, agile defenders (especially of the fighter and multi-sanctioning paladin varieties) and a paranoid wizard/archer can easily work together to minimize melee. At which point, it depends how common archers are - in many campaigns, I'd suggest ranged characters beef up their other defenses (FRW) before AC because they don't have to deal too often.

I think 4 is best. That's 5 different ACs. That's plenty of variation. 6 delta is 7 different ACs.

Sure, but those are just numbers. 4 lets you decide that you go from no defense to Some Defense (+1) to Max Defense (+2), and then add in a Lt. Shield (+1) or Hvy Shield (+2).

With 5, you can add a line of granularity for Some, Good, and Max Defense. With 6, you can split Max into High and Extreme.

With 4, feats of any kind like armor specialization shouldn't give an AC bonus ever. With 6, you can allow such a feat to exist.

That and you're ignoring the plain 'This guy has +1 armor better than you' that often happens in a group.

Regardless, of course, options for those who don't take Dex/Int should exist.

Personally, I'm all for stats not increasing with level, ever, no enhancement bonuses, and you can get up to 4 differentiation (light armor +1, heavy armor +2, shield), but then we're talking about 5e for some of that, and pure houserules for some other.

 

[Nifft]

If a Sorcerer or Wizard takes "No" interrupt spells, then he cannot take other miscellaneous spells.

So basically, unlike other classes that have decent AC (even a Cleric gets AC 16 for free at level 1), the AC 14 Wizard and Sorcerer have to either take feats or spells to fill in this hole. So your claim that they can take powes to fill in the hole instead of this feat is a bit weak. You are still recommending that they shore up this weakness.

Nope, I'm telling you that, even if you feel their weak AC must be shored up, there are multiple ways to go about doing that.
1/ Leather Armor; or
2/ Interrupt powers (including spells, Staff class feature, and item powers).

My Wizard took both options because he intended to spend a lot of time in melee range. When we have had particularly tough fights, he's been the last one standing -- three times so far from levels 1 to 11, he's stood in the way of a TPK and said, "YOU SHALL NOT COME TO PASS". So yeah, a Wizard can be a damn hard target.

Therefore, someone who intends to stand back and can reasonably expect to avoid being in melee does not need both options.

As for competent defenders, not all foes come from one direction in narrow corridors. It's extremely easy in 4E to bypass a defender.

No, it's not. A competent Defender can actually be pretty good at checking enemy movement.

Well, I partly take that back. You're fairly clever, so you could probably figure out ways to screw your party's Defender out of being able to use his class abilities. But do you really do that every encounter?

Cheers, -- N