AC vs other Defences

[Kaelkatar]

There is also the fact that what you are trying to accomplish by getting tons of defenses, which is being as close to spell immunity as possible, can get bad. It is easily possible to get a single defense with the current rules to 50% hit against an equal monster. If there were more ways to get defenses, you could have characters that focus on defense that have two of their saves up to 25% miss, add buffs from caster classes, and second winds and magic items you could easily have characters with defenses so high that it doesn't matter what the dragon rolls, it misses.

One of the degenerate things in 3.5 is that a well geared monk was almost immune to damage, it took a bit to kill sometimes, but whenever the PCs don't fear for their lives, its not a good thing.

 

[Runestar]

One of the degenerate things in 3.5 is that a well geared monk was almost immune to damage, it took a bit to kill sometimes, but whenever the PCs don't fear for their lives, its not a good thing.

A well geared monk in 3.5 was still pitifully weak, enough for the enemy to just ignore his existence in general and focus on other more threatening PCs like the wizard and cleric. Ever heard of the phrase "tortoise with a toothpick"? There is no point making yourself so hard to kill if no one is ever going to bother attacking you anyways (which was why the sword+shield fighter in 3e stank. However high his AC, the enemy could just bypass him and attack the wizard at the back!).

Same goes here. So what if the fighter has a nigh-unbeatable fort defense? The enemy may not even target his fort save, but instead attack his weakest defense - will.

I guess the problem with a weak defense is that it can make your other strong defenses moot. What is the point of having unbeatable fort/reflex defenses if your will defense is so low that you will still be affected by any will-targeting power? I would rather have decent scores in all 3 defenses (and thus presenting no obvious weaknesses) than have 2 strong defenses and 1 crap one, because really, your defense is only as strong as your weakest one.

 

[Tony Vargas]

AWhat is the point of having unbeatable fort/reflex defenses if your will defense is so low that you will still be affected by any will-targeting power? I would rather have decent scores in all 3 defenses (and thus presenting no obvious weaknesses) than have 2 strong defenses and 1 crap one, because really, your defense is only as strong as your weakest one.

I share your preference: I didn't like having a 'weak' save in 3e, and won't be wanting my lowest defense to be much lower than my highest in 4e. In spite of that preference, though, having a low defense does not negate your other defenses. Monsters don't generally have nearly as wide a variety of attacks as PCs. If your WILL is low, yes, some monsters are going to screw with you, because they have an attack vs WILL - many, though, will not, because thier attacks are all vs AC (or AC and one other defense that happens not to be WILL). Flipping over to the Monster Manual Statistics thread ( http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?t=229092 ), only 1 in 5 monsters attack WILL, while 2 in 5 attack AC /only/, and about a third each go for FORT or REF.

 

[Jhaelen]

Flipping over to the Monster Manual Statistics thread ( http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?t=229092 ), only 1 in 5 monsters attack WILL, while 2 in 5 attack AC /only/, and about a third each go for FORT or REF.

That's interesting. However, I'm not sure if it will be relevant during actual play. It's pretty campaign-specific which monsters you'll encounter most often.

Does anyone have statistical information about other correlations, like monster origin or role?
E.g. if a campaign focuses on Fey creatures will the percentages be skewed towards a certain attack type?

I guess, I'll have to do some further analysis myself...

 

[FreeXenon]

Try this thread: Lots of statistics from the Monster Manual

 

[Puggins]

Trying another combo:

Human fighter with heavy shield, using Hide + High Dex.

Dex 26 -> +8
Shield + Shield Specialization -> +3
Amulet -> +6
Lightning Reflexes -> +2
Human -> +1

-> 45 Reflex Defense

+33 monster needs 12 or more. Add any debuffing attack that gives -2 attack, it needs 14 or more. Add a +2 armor buff from the cleric and the monster needs 16 or more.

Of course, we ARE talking about a str-based class using Dex as its exclusive secondary attribute (heavy blades, here I come!) that took a specific feat.