Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 4359984" data-attributes="member: 2011">In a discussion of Wizard At Will powers, AC doesn't matter. I assumed you had a typo in your message because you were talking about how wonderful Ray of Frost is.Ray of Frost is not wonderful. We have the early part of this thread here on how subpar it is, even after throwing two feats at it.So, if you were indeed talking about AC (which is not very productive in a discusion on Wizard At Will powers), most weapons get a +2 ranged (where the attacker is more safe) or +3 melee to hit (where the attacker is less safe) weapon proficiency bonus.Wizard attacks do not get this bonus.So yes, Fort can be lower than AC and often is.But who cares unless one subtracts 3 from the AC in order to compare the AC to the Fort. At that point, one is comparing Defender (good attacker vs. AC) vs. Wizard (good attacker vs. Fort): AC vs. Fort.At that point, the number of &quot;Significantly Lower Fort (i.e. adjusted by 3 and 4 or more than that lower) vs. AC&quot; creatures out of the first 182 is exactly 1. Even comparing AC-3 straight up vs. Fort yields 34 creatures (most of them 1 lower) out of 182.One cannot just compare AC to Fort because PCs that use weapons get bonuses to hit. One has to adjust AC and then compare.1 out of 182 significantly lower. Yup, that is &quot;sometimes&quot;, but not too often.Hardly an endorsement of what you were stating.Fort is almost never significantly lower than any Defense one compares it to. One of the other Defenses is better than Fort for a Wizard (or any attacker) to target the vast majority of the time.That is one reason (out of several) why Ray of Frost is suboptimal.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="KarinsDad, post: 4359984, member: 2011"] In a discussion of Wizard At Will powers, AC doesn't matter. I assumed you had a typo in your message because you were talking about how wonderful Ray of Frost is. Ray of Frost is not wonderful. We have the early part of this thread here on how subpar it is, even after throwing two feats at it. So, if you were indeed talking about AC (which is not very productive in a discusion on Wizard At Will powers), most weapons get a +2 ranged (where the attacker is more safe) or +3 melee to hit (where the attacker is less safe) weapon proficiency bonus. Wizard attacks do not get this bonus. So yes, Fort can be lower than AC and often is. But who cares unless one subtracts 3 from the AC in order to compare the AC to the Fort. At that point, one is comparing Defender (good attacker vs. AC) vs. Wizard (good attacker vs. Fort): AC vs. Fort. At that point, the number of "Significantly Lower Fort (i.e. adjusted by 3 and 4 or more than that lower) vs. AC" creatures out of the first 182 is exactly 1. Even comparing AC-3 straight up vs. Fort yields 34 creatures (most of them 1 lower) out of 182. One cannot just compare AC to Fort because PCs that use weapons get bonuses to hit. One has to adjust AC and then compare. 1 out of 182 significantly lower. Yup, that is "sometimes", but not too often. Hardly an endorsement of what you were stating. Fort is almost never significantly lower than any Defense one compares it to. One of the other Defenses is better than Fort for a Wizard (or any attacker) to target the vast majority of the time. That is one reason (out of several) why Ray of Frost is suboptimal. [/QUOTE]

Verification