Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Help: Gap between AC and defenses seems too large.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="eamon" data-source="post: 5569975" data-attributes="member: 51942"><p>Firstly: Don't balance monsters to be able to hit the artful dodger AC on OA's. It's his shtik; and it's perfectly OK to miss on a roll of a 19 here (there are lots of ways to move entirely without provoking, so this isn't as powerful as it may seem).</p><p></p><p>The bard's fort defense looks perfectly average. He probably started with no higher than a 10/11 in Strength and Constitutuion, and judging by his other stats, that makes him a cunning bard. In fact, the other PC's have unusually high non-AC defenses. </p><p></p><p>I can't imagine a Shaman that boosts Int <em>instead </em>of Wis to work except at the lowest of levels, and even there, poorly - so that's just plain wonky there (are you sure that character's on the level - or is it a hybrid?) Actually, perhaps he's a Wis/Int build - but even then, his reflex is absurdly high. There's no class bonus, and just +2 from level and +1 from inherent bonuses, which means he's getting +6 from elsewhere. Sounds like he has improved defenses (which is an unusual feat so early on), <em>and</em> and Int of 20-21 - crazy high for a shaman.</p><p></p><p><em>Typical </em>of AC would generally be at least 2level+3armor+3stat+1inherent - AC19. There are a very few classes without any armor proficiency; but for such classes unarmored agility is a very powerful choice, and they generally have other AC boosts or a Dex/Int primary, so anything lower than AC19 means they're dumping AC; even a psion or wizard can easily have AC19. For a defender that's usually 22-23, perhaps even more if minmaxed (up to say +2level+5stat+3armor+1inherent+3warding == AC24 swordmage at the cost of a feat an odd stat spread if I'm not mistaken?)</p><p></p><p>By contrast, assuming a fairly optimistic post-racial 13/18/18 spread (or equivalently 13/15/20) and a secondary that's not overlapping the primary wrt NADs, then by fourth level that's a sum total of +9 stat modifiers, +2 from class, +1*3 from inherent bonuses, +2*3 from level +1 for the occasional shield == +21, or +7*3. So that's a NAD of 17 on average. Based on the defenses you've listed, It looks like this party is minmaxing on the non-AC defenses; probably by choosing improved defenses over expertise, and by choosing a stat distributions that penalizes the attack stat to boost the tertiary stat.</p><p></p><p>So, with AC ranging conservatily from 19-23 and non-ac defenses averaging at 17, <strong>I'd expect the difference between AC and average NADs to be at <em>least</em> 2</strong>, but up to 7(!) ; a difference of 3/4 <em>before </em>improved defenses is fairly reasonable. If the difference is lower, that means people are specifically optimizing NADs or have classes with unusally low AC and/or they don't yet have the eventually expected AC-boosts (e.g. armor proficiency or unarmored agility). A few low-AC non-defenders will have a lower difference, but a defender or a non-defender with Int/Dex primary will compensate, so if the difference is less that 3-4 <em>after</em> improved defenses, there's something weird going on.</p><p></p><p>In conclusion, since Monster attacks vs. NADs are just 2 lower than those vs. AC, expect them to hit much more frequently - after all it's not reasonable to assume everyone has improved defenses so early, nor is it odd for monsters to focus on those PC's whose defenses they can easily hit (so the average could be skewed to the lowest defense.)</p><p></p><p><em><strong>Edit: Fixed math to account for the chance of a shield; I'm arbitrarily assigning that a +1 value, an to account for racial modifiers.</strong></em></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="eamon, post: 5569975, member: 51942"] Firstly: Don't balance monsters to be able to hit the artful dodger AC on OA's. It's his shtik; and it's perfectly OK to miss on a roll of a 19 here (there are lots of ways to move entirely without provoking, so this isn't as powerful as it may seem). The bard's fort defense looks perfectly average. He probably started with no higher than a 10/11 in Strength and Constitutuion, and judging by his other stats, that makes him a cunning bard. In fact, the other PC's have unusually high non-AC defenses. I can't imagine a Shaman that boosts Int [I]instead [/I]of Wis to work except at the lowest of levels, and even there, poorly - so that's just plain wonky there (are you sure that character's on the level - or is it a hybrid?) Actually, perhaps he's a Wis/Int build - but even then, his reflex is absurdly high. There's no class bonus, and just +2 from level and +1 from inherent bonuses, which means he's getting +6 from elsewhere. Sounds like he has improved defenses (which is an unusual feat so early on), [I]and[/I] and Int of 20-21 - crazy high for a shaman. [I]Typical [/I]of AC would generally be at least 2level+3armor+3stat+1inherent - AC19. There are a very few classes without any armor proficiency; but for such classes unarmored agility is a very powerful choice, and they generally have other AC boosts or a Dex/Int primary, so anything lower than AC19 means they're dumping AC; even a psion or wizard can easily have AC19. For a defender that's usually 22-23, perhaps even more if minmaxed (up to say +2level+5stat+3armor+1inherent+3warding == AC24 swordmage at the cost of a feat an odd stat spread if I'm not mistaken?) By contrast, assuming a fairly optimistic post-racial 13/18/18 spread (or equivalently 13/15/20) and a secondary that's not overlapping the primary wrt NADs, then by fourth level that's a sum total of +9 stat modifiers, +2 from class, +1*3 from inherent bonuses, +2*3 from level +1 for the occasional shield == +21, or +7*3. So that's a NAD of 17 on average. Based on the defenses you've listed, It looks like this party is minmaxing on the non-AC defenses; probably by choosing improved defenses over expertise, and by choosing a stat distributions that penalizes the attack stat to boost the tertiary stat. So, with AC ranging conservatily from 19-23 and non-ac defenses averaging at 17, [B]I'd expect the difference between AC and average NADs to be at [I]least[/I] 2[/B], but up to 7(!) ; a difference of 3/4 [I]before [/I]improved defenses is fairly reasonable. If the difference is lower, that means people are specifically optimizing NADs or have classes with unusally low AC and/or they don't yet have the eventually expected AC-boosts (e.g. armor proficiency or unarmored agility). A few low-AC non-defenders will have a lower difference, but a defender or a non-defender with Int/Dex primary will compensate, so if the difference is less that 3-4 [I]after[/I] improved defenses, there's something weird going on. In conclusion, since Monster attacks vs. NADs are just 2 lower than those vs. AC, expect them to hit much more frequently - after all it's not reasonable to assume everyone has improved defenses so early, nor is it odd for monsters to focus on those PC's whose defenses they can easily hit (so the average could be skewed to the lowest defense.) [I][B]Edit: Fixed math to account for the chance of a shield; I'm arbitrarily assigning that a +1 value, an to account for racial modifiers.[/B][/I] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Help: Gap between AC and defenses seems too large.
Top