Energy Enhancements are too good at +1 (math)

[Coredump]

Not really.

As for 'easy', I was referring to it being easy to see what his error was and why.

As I said, he calculated the 'hit chance' twice.

 

[Elric]

To add to everything that has been said, remember that tougher enemies tend to have higher ACs. The time when you want your character's power to be at its peak is against your toughest enemies. Since these enemies have high AC and often have energy resistance, an additional magic plus is usually better against a boss enemy than an energy enchantment. These toughest fights really count the most.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

To add to everything that has been said, remember that tougher enemies tend to have higher ACs. The time when you want your character's power to be at its peak is against your toughest enemies.

Yeah but against too tough an enemy I retreat, at some point the fight has unacceptable odds and characters that want to survive to the next level flee. My character posted would likely flee or seek bolstering for an enemy with an AC that exceeded 24.

 

[Crothian]

Yeah but against too tough an enemy I retreat, at some point the fight has unacceptable odds and characters that want to survive to the next level flee. My character posted would likely flee or seek bolstering for an enemy with an AC that exceeded 24.

Ya, but by the time you find out what the AC is it may be too late unless the DM is just telling you the AC of the creatures you face. And even if not basing the retreat on an AC is very meta gamey.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

Ya, but by the time you find out what the AC is it may be too late unless the DM is just telling you the AC of the creatures you face. And even if not basing the retreat on an AC is very meta gamey.

You reckon?

I play the game that the pcs can see & feel the various combat stats as soon as they try their combat maneauvers; try to hit a foe & you'll learn their AC straight away. Given this assumption it is easy to rationalize within character if an enemy is difficult to land blows upon, and if that foe's defence is coupled with an effective attack I'm all for retreating.

 

[ThirdWizard]

IMC you tell what AC you hit and the DM says if it hits or not. That's how I've always done it. So, in that kind of environment, you can fight a while and not be aware of the difficulty of something. The same goes for DCs, so the players might never know how difficult something is for sure. Usually visual clues give you an idea, the enemy is in full plate or the lock is brand new with the mark of the best locksmith in the city on it. But, especially with magical defenses or enhancements, you can never be sure exactly what number you're going for.

 

[sfedi]

I play the game that the pcs can see & feel the various combat stats as soon as they try their combat maneauvers; try to hit a foe & you'll learn their AC straight away. Given this assumption it is easy to rationalize within character if an enemy is difficult to land blows upon, and if that foe's defence is coupled with an effective attack I'm all for retreating.

I do exactly the same thing.

At first, players feel they have a lot of info, but after a couple of fights they realize that that doesn't make them win.
It's been smart.

 

[Staffan]

You reckon?

I play the game that the pcs can see & feel the various combat stats as soon as they try their combat maneauvers; try to hit a foe & you'll learn their AC straight away. Given this assumption it is easy to rationalize within character if an enemy is difficult to land blows upon, and if that foe's defence is coupled with an effective attack I'm all for retreating.

The way I see it, it takes a while to size up your opponent correctly. From a meta-game point of view, this is the equivalent of figuring out your opponent's AC by noticing which rolls miss and which hit ("I got a 22." - "Miss." - "24 then?" - "Hit!" - you can figure out that his AC is 23 or 24).

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

The way I see it, it takes a while to size up your opponent correctly. From a meta-game point of view, this is the equivalent of figuring out your opponent's AC by noticing which rolls miss and which hit ("I got a 22." - "Miss." - "24 then?" - "Hit!" - you can figure out that his AC is 23 or 24).

In actual play my style works out something similar to yourself but the cloud of uncertainty clears as soon as a roll is declared. Basically a player declares that they're going to attack an enemy with whatever maneauver (power attack for 2, fighting defensively etc...) for the first time & then I will open the relevant information to the player on request. Next turn the player can have their character act upon the strength or weakness learned.

Assuming the allies know each others capabilities, i.e. seen them do whatever at least once, and can observe the above exchange, they too are privy to their enemies relevant skill level.

The various magical effects such as natural armour bonuses, enhanced armour & deflection are also openly revealed upon combat interaction. If asked by the player in that situation I will explain that there is a deflective aura of two measures & whatever else.

In character this is justified I believe, but more importantly my metagame rationale is that it gives more information to the player to make skillful tactical decisions. Oh yeah, it also speeds things up by players being able to roll in advance their damage.

 

[Nail]

IMC you tell what AC you hit and the DM says if it hits or not. That's how I've always done it.

Me too.

I my high level game (APL 15), the first attack of just about everybody hits.....it's the iterative attacks that might miss due to an opponent's high AC. Usually by round 3 everyone knows what the BBEG's AC is....and by that time, much of the combat has been decided.