Is AC broken?

[Left-handed Hummingbird]

This should reflect the ability to parry/dodge blows/arrows/rays better with higher experience in fighting.

Ehm... why not just stick with Expertise?

 

[WizarDru]

Ehm... why not just stick with Expertise?

Expertise is pretty useful for this. Just last week, I watched the Paladin 18 in my group use both Power Attack and Expertise at the same time, and it served him very well.

At high levels, you assume that you will be hit, at least once, if you get close enough to be struck. That's what hit points are for. A combination of the right defensive spells and strategy keep this in check. That same paladin had DEX and STR enhancers, several buffs from himself and the cleric and wizard. The Arcane Archer in the group is simliarly AC buffed. But against creatures that have a +25 to hit, the chance of not getting hit on the first strike rapidly hits that 5% barrier. By design. To reduce it any lower than that, you'll need things like such as miss-chance spells and the like (such as blur, blink, mirror image, and so forth).

 

[fett527]

But against creatures that have a +25 to hit, the chance of not getting hit on the first strike rapidly hits that 5% barrier. By design. To reduce it any lower than that, you'll need things like such as miss-chance spells and the like (such as blur, blink, mirror image, and so forth).

If anyone's played in a high level game, especially against giants, you will know this statement is completely accurate. I played in the Hall of the Fire Giant King at Ohio Gameday and I played a Barbarian8/Sorcerer6. I buffed his AC and had some items to increase it as well, but the most effective defenses were displacement and mirror image. I tried my hardest to just not get hit.

 

[MThibault]

The first attack is usually guaranteed to hit, but iterative attacks not. IMX D&D doesn't really break up, at least not until 20th level. My group wasn't intentionally trying to break it, though.

One spellcaster was broken at 18+ level, but he used Archmage PrC from FRCS. Not balanced, let's just say.

To your question: I don't think we should add a defence bonus. AC can be jacked up quite easily with available means anyway - but if you desire a low magic item campaign, then defence bonuses might be a good idea.

I agree completely with Numion. Your best attack really just provides your Baseline Damage at high levels. Your subsequent attacks provide a bit of suspence. Don't forget that monsters have a lot more HP than in previous editions -- if there were no baseline damage combat would take a lot longer in 3e.

I'm no expert on the epic levels, though, so for all I know things might break down there. But between level 12 and 20 the paradigm changes, but it doesn't really break down.

Cheers

 

[Upper_Krust]

AC is not broken!

Hi all!

I strongly disagree with everyone spouting that AC is overtly broken.

At low level a character in full plate and shield can easily have an Armour Class of 20+. The same character may have an attack bonus of about 5+. This gives about 25% chance of hitting a similar opponent.

At higher levels characters become ever more likely to hit similar opponents, but the overall damage potential (in terms of percentages) remains approximately the same.

At Epic Levels (fighter type) characters will hit virtually all of the time. But the potential damage percentage is roughly the same.

Characters approximately deal 1/5th* damage per round (taking the likelihood of attack success into account) against their alter egos.

*Obviously a rough average, given the myriad options.

In fact if anything BAB progression should not be changed at Epic Levels since this totally screws that previous balance since Power Attack is needed to explain the halt in the number of attacks.

The bottom line is that Attack Bonus isn't meant to consistently parallel Armour Class; Potential Damage is meant to parallel Hit Points.

I read the review of the Epic Level Handbook by Hardhead (which led to this thread) and while I agree with a few of his points; the Attack Bonus vs. AC "flaw" which he consistently mentioned over and over again is easily debunked.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I agree completely with Numion. Your best attack really just provides your Baseline Damage at high levels. Your subsequent attacks provide a bit of suspence. Don't forget that monsters have a lot more HP than in previous editions -- if there were no baseline damage combat would take a lot longer in 3e.

I concur.

Even at mid-levels, a lot of match-ups are nearly auto-hits on the first attack. The only real question is how many followup iterative attacks connect.

I play a wizard that doesn't bother with AC. He relies on concealment (Invisibility, Blur) and Mirror Images as armor.

If you are an epic level bruiser making a single attack, AC is only a matter of how much Power Attack to throw on.

 

[Najo]

Is AC broken

My understanding of AC is that it is essentially the DC for attack rolls. Other DCs raise appropiately with the task they represent (such as epic skills). If two fighers of the same level faced off and one put 100% of its training in offensive abilities and the other put 100% of its training in defensive abilities then when the offensive fighter attempted to attack the defensive fighter, there should be a 50% success ratio for that attack to hit. Is this possible to achieve?

Nate

 

[Hypersmurf]

Re: Is AC broken

Other DCs raise appropiately with the task they represent (such as epic skills).

Like, say, Tumble or Cast Defensively?

-Hyp.

 

[Pax]

At high levels, you assume that you will be hit, at least once, if you get close enough to be struck. That's what hit points are for. A combination of the right defensive spells and strategy keep this in check.

Actually ... I have a 25th level "concept character" -- human, no epic armor-boosting items -- who laughs at attempts (almost universally unsuccessful) to hit him. *grin*

Then again, I admit, I was point-monkeying for AC and the PC is an unusual case. However, yous hould never assume anything with any degree of absolute certainty.

After all, I think a 91 AC is pretty tough to hit, wouldn't you agree?

Anyway ... sorry ... just had to stick my nose in for a second. 8)

[EDIT]
Najo, actually, with the above character ... I defy anyone to have a better than +90 attack bonus, at only ECL 25. Granted, some 25-odd points of that AC are the result of a single prestige class (Duellist, 15 levels of it). But ... that's what's called "focussing 100% on defense" ... heh.
[/EDIT]