Help: Gap between AC and defenses seems too large.

[OnlineDM]

[MENTION=51942]eamon[/MENTION]: On your AC points, keep in mind that this particular campaign uses inherent bonuses and it sounds like the DM is controlling the loot, so PC won't be able to boost their armor class by picking "the right gear" as you would see on the CharOp boards.

As for your Swordmage example, I'm confused. If you have a Swordmage with 18 Int and Improved Swordmage Warding and inherent bonuses, their AC at level 4 will be:

10 (base) + 2 (half level) + 2 (armor) + 4 (Int modifier) + 3 (Warding) + 1 (Improved Warding) + 1 (inherent) = 23 AC

Where were you getting 24? Am I forgetting a point of AC somewhere?

Edit: If you assumed a 19 or 20 Intelligence to start with (assuming a bump of Int at level 4), that would indeed get you to 24 AC.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I'm looking at the way I've designed soldiers (and, likely, brutes and skirmishers). I'm thinking of giving many of them an at-will that targets something other than AC.

So, a spear-wielding warrior, who would probably be a soldier or skirmisher, might have an attack called armor-piercing strike that would target Reflex. It's a little harder to come up with flavor text that targets Fort though. (While poison would target Fort, that's only if it's not delivered by weapon. Like a blinding poison cloud I saw a nasty lurker using.)

Previously I'd given soldiers one at-will and an encounter or recharge power plus a "counterattack marked opponent" power, but it seems they should only have one or the other. I'll go with the counterattack.

Some WotC-designed soldiers have as many as three at-wills though, such as caravan guards, giving space for an NAD-targeting power when designing custom monsters. The counterattack power could let the soldier use any at-will, giving them options for beating anyone who targets their favored ally.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Are these for PCs? Those are the exact numbers expected for monsters.

It could be that I'm confused - I don't actually own the book.

 

[WalterKovacs]

I'm looking at the way I've designed soldiers (and, likely, brutes and skirmishers). I'm thinking of giving many of them an at-will that targets something other than AC.

So, a spear-wielding warrior, who would probably be a soldier or skirmisher, might have an attack called armor-piercing strike that would target Reflex. It's a little harder to come up with flavor text that targets Fort though. (While poison would target Fort, that's only if it's not delivered by weapon. Like a blinding poison cloud I saw a nasty lurker using.)

Well, some have fort attacks with poisons on a weapon act as a follow up (if you hit vs. AC, or maybe reflex, then you make the attack vs. fort for the poison). You can also go with an hammer or pick, perhaps with a push/prone effect, to have a fort targeting attack.

 

[OnlineDM]

[MENTION=1165](Psi)SeveredHead[/MENTION]: I think your idea of an attack that targets Reflex makes sense - although keep in mind that it still won't help your monsters hit the Rogue.

[MENTION=63763]WalterKovacs[/MENTION]: I think your hammer/pick versus Fortitude suggestion makes a lot of sense. If you're fighting a Large beast of some sort, they could also have some kind of slam attack (a tail or something like that) that pushes/prones against Fort.

Coming up with non-magical ways to attack Will is tougher. You could maybe give a creature a blood-curdling scream or a horrific roar to deal psychic damage versus Will (banshee-like, but it wouldn't have to be magical if it's just terrifying).

 

[eamon]

@eamon : On your AC points, keep in mind that this particular campaign uses inherent bonuses and it sounds like the DM is controlling the loot, so PC won't be able to boost their armor class by picking "the right gear" as you would see on the CharOp boards.

This is only true to a degree however. First of all, I'm kind of assuming the DM isn't out to get the characters, so that to some extent they will get what they want. Secondly, you may be thinking "cheese" when you hear charop, but the reason I refer to it is simply because it's a large forum with lots of ideas. Even without any say in magic items I'll bet you'll find decent ideas over there. E.g. the parrying dagger I mentioned earlier: that's just a superior weapon; the Mage's enchantment merely means you don't need the proficiency feat for it. And there's probably lots of other stuff around there; it probably won't add up to much (4e is fairly balanced), but you'll easily surpass 22AC anyhow. So the point then is: are you specifically out to limit such combos?

In general, this really depends on the campaign. If you intend to strictly limit all AC-boosting enchantments; that's fine. And as with all such campaign-specific rules: just make sure the player's know before they build their characters.

That's why I'm so leery of where this thread is headed. I see at least one PC specifically built to have a high AC and be very hard to hit with OA's. That's his thing. And he's doing it without being game breaking or even unbalancing: as discussed before, the hit rate on non-OA's for level-appropriate enemies is well above 30% and will rise further as he levels; this is OK. And there's another PC who is playing a by-the-book defender. You're suggesting to alter the game (and obviously after the campaign has started), to nerf these characters for no good reason! Now, I'm not in your campaign; I don't know it nor your players, and it's very possible none of this is relevant. But there's certainly no motivation for the change in this thread, so this looks like a case of arbitrary-DM-nerf.

Don't pull the rug out from under the PCs. Not unless you have to. Basic attacks tend to be fairly weak, do only damage, and be versus AC. Shaking up the game can be fun. But your changes look like they're for all the wrong reasons. You look to be punishing a player choice that's non-problematic, and without warning beforehand.

You're asking "How can I mitigate the high AC of these PCs?" - when you should be asking "Should I nerf these PC builds?" - and you should not; they aren't problematic, and you're violating the cardinal rule that player choices should matter.