Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="billd91" data-source="post: 5104516" data-attributes="member: 3400">I don't think it's wrong to tailor encounters to the capabilities of the PCs, but I think basing the ACs on the attack bonuses of the fighter-types is a bad idea. I wouldn't base them on anything higher than the mid-range attack bonuses - the clerics/rogues/2nd iterative attacks for the fighters.If you base a key defensive ability in combat, the AC, to the most extreme end of the PC range, anyone who can't keep up with that yet participates in non-spell combat suffers. And that's not a good balance for your players. The rogue gets pretty hosed in that scenario.It's OK for fighters to do really well at hitting for their first attack (and maybe second). They have things they can do with their excess attack bonus like raising their own ACs or damage potential through BAB-trade-off feats like Combat Expertise and Power Attack. Other classes can do that too, but nobody does it better because nobody else has the attack bonus to spare.I've yet to see a 3e game in which having optimized fighter-types was ever a major problem. So they chew through monster? That's their job. If encounters seem to be ending too quickly, I'd consider adding more creatures rather than buffing up the defenses of fewer creatures. More creatures can mean more challenge to the fighters without sidelining the mid-range combatants.</blockquote>