HP are still king?

[Majoru Oakheart]

Actually, the difference is much more. A character with an AC of 22 is hit 60% of the time by a +13 attack, while a character with an AC of 25 is hit 45% of the time by the same attack. Although the numbers "differ by 15%", the AC 25 character is actually hit 25% less often.

Thanks. I've always been bad at probabilities. Which only goes to show that it has an even bigger effect than I thought.

I'm just worried about people's impressions. When the fighter has an 18 AC, the paladin has 20, the ranger has 17, the rogue has 16...and so on. When you are looking at a 5 point difference between the highest AC and the lowest AC in the party, it tends to get people complaining that all characters are exactly the same and there is very little customization you can do on your character.

However, once you work with the system for a short while, you realize that the difference those 5 points makes is fairly dramatic. The same thing will likely apply to all numbers across the entire game.

 

[mach1.9pants]

Isn't this because AC = Reflex defence + armour bonus, and that you don't get Dex bonuses when wearing heavy armour?

Nope, not quite. For example if your class gets a +2 to Reflex at 1st level, that doesn't carry over to AC. So AC and Ref defences are linked (they use some of the same stuff e.g. same ability scores, shield adds to both) it is not ref+armour =AC.
EDIT: Ninjae'd

 

[fnwc]

When the fighter has an 18 AC, the paladin has 20, the ranger has 17, the rogue has 16...and so on. When you are looking at a 5 point difference between the highest AC and the lowest AC in the party, it tends to get people complaining that all characters are exactly the same and there is very little customization you can do on your character.

I assume you're going off the 1st level characters? At this level, the difference in the defenses is probably going to be at its lowest possible point. More than likely, the gap in defenses is likely to grow as characters level (through straight numerical advantage or power mitigation).

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I assume you're going off the 1st level characters? At this level, the difference in the defenses is probably going to be at its lowest possible point. More than likely, the gap in defenses is likely to grow as characters level (through straight numerical advantage or power mitigation).

Perhaps...I wish I could say more about this. Consult me again when the books come out and I can speak freely.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

I assume you're going off the 1st level characters? At this level, the difference in the defenses is probably going to be at its lowest possible point. More than likely, the gap in defenses is likely to grow as characters level (through straight numerical advantage or power mitigation).

The numbers scale linearly, +1/2 levels. The gap never grows that's the whole point of "the math".

 

[frankthedm]

Yeah HP are king, designers did the coronation ceremony. PC are not allowed to become unhittable. Designers know what ACs PCs will have and have made sure they stay in what AC is level acceptable. This was even taken to the extreme of gimping cover.

 

[Dausuul]

I assume you're going off the 1st level characters? At this level, the difference in the defenses is probably going to be at its lowest possible point. More than likely, the gap in defenses is likely to grow as characters level (through straight numerical advantage or power mitigation).

From all I can see, the game is built on the expectation that the gap between "high AC" and "low AC" combatants will not change dramatically. I expect that you'll see it grow slightly in the event that one character concentrates on building up his/her defense (e.g., through feats), but my guess is that you're unlikely to see the gap expand by more than 3-4 points, even over a campaign that goes from 1 to 30.

 

[Lurker37]

I assume you're going off the 1st level characters? At this level, the difference in the defenses is probably going to be at its lowest possible point. More than likely, the gap in defenses is likely to grow as characters level (through straight numerical advantage or power mitigation).

Thankfully, this is precisely what the designers are trying to avoid with 4E.

 

[GoLu]

The numbers scale linearly, +1/2 levels. The gap never grows that's the whole point of "the math".

It doesn't grow because of levels, but it might grow because the strikers get cool powers (abilities, feats, powers, magic items, etc.) that increase their offense while the defenders get cool powers that increase their defense.

Then again, the gap shouldn't be growing anywhere near as much as it did in 3rd edition.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

It doesn't grow because of levels, but it might grow because the strikers get cool powers (abilities, feats, powers, magic items, etc.) that increase their offense while the defenders get cool powers that increase their defense.

Then again, the gap shouldn't be growing anywhere near as much as it did in 3rd edition.

In fact, new powers could help the AC-vs-other-defenses gap to NOT grow, by giving Fort - Reflex - Will bonuses at a similar rate to the availability of AC increasing magic items.

I think that the gap will be less prominent than in 3e, but I think you will still be able to do a certain amount of "jacking", like taking reflex increasing magic items, magic shields, and dex or int boosters and reflex powers. But I bet it will be MUCH more difficult to come up with something that's broken. I also think it will balance better with you NOT getting other things that would be more useful if you want to jack up one defense.

Fitz