Masterwork from Adventurer's Vault: Help Me Grock It

[Elric]

Rogue: 25 AC, foe hits on a 10 (55%)
Barbarian: 27 AC, foe hits on a 12 (45%)
Cleric: 27 AC, foe hits on a 12 (45%)
Paladin: 30 AC, foe hits on a 15 (30%)

...[vs. +1 level foes]
Rogue: 25 AC, foe hits on a 9 (60%)
Barbarian: 27 AC, foe hits on a 11 (50%)
Cleric: 27 AC, foe hits on a 11 (50%)
Paladin: 30 AC, foe hits on a 14 (35%)

Since his characters are level 11, standard monster to-hit at level+5 (as you use below) should be +16. So all of these numbers are 5 percentage points too favorable to the party.

 

[Felon]

I don't. I see that you are screwing your players whose PCs use heavy armor and rewarding the player of the Rogue.

With the AV / PHB II rules and assuming that you gave the Paladin the same +3 armor that you handed out to the other PCs, against average same level foes, this would become:

Rogue: 25 AC, foe hits on a 10 (55%)
Barbarian: 27 AC, foe hits on a 12 (45%)
Cleric: 27 AC, foe hits on a 12 (45%)
Paladin: 30 AC, foe hits on a 15 (30%)

Sure, the Barbarian and Cleric have a 45% chance to get hit. But both of them took a feat (two feats in the case of the Barbarian) so that they would not be at 50% against same level foes.

Sure, the Paladin is much harder to hit. He's supposed to be. He's a defender and will get attacked more than his allies on average. He's still going to get hit one attack in three. And, I bet his Reflex defense sucks.

And, the game is not designed for every encounter to be against same level foes. A standard encounter is same level or same level +1. Without even getting to a difficult encounter, this means that level +1 foes in a standard encounter would be:

Rogue: 25 AC, foe hits on a 9 (60%)
Barbarian: 27 AC, foe hits on a 11 (50%)
Cleric: 27 AC, foe hits on a 11 (50%)
Paladin: 30 AC, foe hits on a 14 (35%)

3 out of 4 members of this party get hit 50% or more of the time in this standard encounter. That's not enough for you?

If the Rogue took the Hide armor feat like the Cleric took the Scale armor feat, the Rogue would be better protected. His choice. If the Rogue took shield proficiency, he would also be better protected. He shouldn't have the same AC as his fellow PCs who used feats to do so.

But with the PHB (screwed up) heavy armor rules, the Barbarian and Cleric have the same chance of being hit as the Rogue, even though the Barbarian and Cleric took one or more feats. You are screwing your Barbarian and Cleric.

So, you are screwing 3 of your 4 players because 3 of 4 are wearing heavy armor.


Seriously. People have looked at the math very carefully. Not using the AV masterwork armor rules is going to screw some of your players. I doubt you will find many people here that agree with your POV.

And, the fact that your supposed to be squishy Rogue has the same AC as your Barbarian and Cleric should throw up a big red flag that something is wrong. What is wrong is that your heavy armors are too low because you are following the PHB broken rules on them. Your Rogues does more damage than the other two PCs and has as good of AC as the two PCs that used feats to get there when he did not.

You see nothing wrong with that?

Here are the number on the die needed by same level foes (to hit level +5) with your Rogue, Barbarian/Cleric, and Paladin using core rules and using AV rules. I am assuming they get +1 better armor at levels 3, 6, 11, 16, 21, and 26:

SNIP CODE

Although the Rogue was easier to hit at level one, he is actually harder to hit than the Cleric or Barbarian at levels 14 or 15 and often the same to hit due to the flaw in the math. In the first three columns, this is not the case. The better armor (i.e. heavy) is better.

At levels 14 and 15 with core rules, Leather + Dex = Plate armor. WT?

That's fixed in AV.

You're simply making a lot of assumptions, notably that a rogue should be squishy. I don't see any evidence that validates that perspective, or that a cleric is entitled to a higher AC than a rogue; that the cleric has the worst of the heavy armors tends to indicate that he's not supposed to have great armor class. Chainmail is, effectively, the heavy armor analogue to cloth. So a cleric spends a feat to catch up.

As for the barbarian, his choice to spend feats to wear scale is poor considering his Barbarian Agility ability would give him a similar AC as well as a Reflex boost, but that's an issue with the player. Surprised you didn't catch that, KD.

The paladin's already got a good AC, gets missed often, and his Reflex doesn't suck because he's got a shield. Again, guess that one slipped past you.

I'm comfortable with seeing cloth, leather, and hide balanced against, chain, scale, and plate they way the PHB sets them up. The quick, agile character is as viable as the tank, which is something many folks longed to see in D&D for a long time. I see some adjustments necessary to maintain that balance at upper-paragon levels, but masterwork armor seems to simply overturn the apple cart with old-school bias towards heavy armor.

So, basically, things are fine the way they are, despite your charmless comments about screwing my players. If their AC's suddlenly ramped up, then I'd wind up using more high-level opponents to compensate. I've run Dungeon Delve encounters, and I've seen what happens when a brute gets thrown at the party that's several levels higher. It doesn't all come out in the wash. The party misses more often and have to inflict more damage to kill foes, and all of that is ultimately not in the best interest of my players.

Between the cleric and the pally mclassed as warlord, they have tons of rope-a-dope ability, because they are loaded with healing powers and little else in the way of leadership. So, foes missing more often doesn't make them sweat. However, taking forever to make a dent in a fight is a frequent issue.

 

[KarinsDad]

You make a lot of assumptions, notably that a rogue should be squishy and lag behing the other characters. I don't agree that a cleric is entitled to a higher AC.

Why did you come here to discuss this?

To argue?

To justify to your players?

Obviously, you are ignoring the math. Did you even look at the chart? Do you not see the heavy armor lag mid-Paragon levels? You are ignoring the fact that the Cleric took a feat to get Scale and hence should have a better AC than the Rogue.

Did you make up your mind before you even wrote a single word? You don't appear to care that the Rogue that had a lesser AC than the Cleric at level 1 has a better AC at levels 14 and 15 with the original rules.

And you sure as heck are not going to convince anyone else. Everyone who responded to you explained it and you still are disagreeing. And quite frankly, WotC disagrees with you as well.

Maybe you should ask yourself why.

It's not power creep. As the chart illustrates, it's game balance. WotC smoothed out the curve. The Cleric and Barbarian although they are supposed to get hit 5% less often than the Rogue (who did not take a feat to boost AC) get hit the same amount or even more often 13 levels out of 30 with the original rules. That's why WotC fixed it. Math 101.

Since his characters are level 11, standard monster to-hit at level+5 (as you use below) should be +16. So all of these numbers are 5 percentage points too favorable to the party.

Hate when I do that:

...[vs. same level foes]
Rogue: 25 AC, foe hits on a 9 (60%)
Barbarian: 27 AC, foe hits on a 11 (50%)
Cleric: 27 AC, foe hits on a 11 (50%)
Paladin: 30 AC, foe hits on a 14 (35%)

...[vs. +1 level foes]
Rogue: 25 AC, foe hits on a 8 (65%)
Barbarian: 27 AC, foe hits on a 10 (55%)
Cleric: 27 AC, foe hits on a 10 (55%)
Paladin: 30 AC, foe hits on a 13 (40%)

 

[KarinsDad]

Maybe some pictures would help.

Same level original rules:



Same level revised rules:




Don't you see the big AC dives for the red and green heavy armors in mid-paragon and epic levels in chart 1?

That's what the revised rule in chart 2 is fixing.

As you can see, both types of AC start getting easier to hit by about 5% per tier anyway.

 

[keterys]

Nice graphs.

 

[Oompa]

No number has any meaning when the players aren't having fun..

So low AC and player having fun is OK
So high AC and player having fun is OK

 

[tiornys]

Hmmmmm........I do see a problem here, but it's with the math presented.

Comparing hide to scale is not an even comparison. Hide armor offers the best AC of the light armors. Plate offers the best AC of the heavy armors. There's the comparison. Of course, fighters don't have plate proficiency, but that's not the heavy armor's problem anymore than it's light armor's problem that the rogue doesn't have hide proficiency.

Plate is comparable to Hide with a starting 20. Scale is comparable to Hide with a starting 18, or Leather with a starting 20. Arguing about these starting conditions is nit-picking for the sake of argumentation. I started with even AC. I could have done this with any number of configurations (such as Chain vs. Hide + starting 16 or Leather + starting 18). I then demonstrated that these characters had unequal scaling as they progressed in levels, and that the masterwork armors presented in AV evened out the scaling. Since the problem is with the scaling, the starting conditions don't actually matter; what matters is the relative change.

And yes, I got level 12 and 14 confused. The core of the argument remains sound.

t~

 

[Styracosaurus]

If you feel that heavy armor should consistently provide better AC than light armor, then you have to use the masterwork armor rules.

If you don't use the Masterwork rules then you are weakening classes like Paladin and Fighter who depend on armor as a class feature.

I think that the Defender PC's will have more fun if they have advantages that make them important. If the strikers and controllers need to be protected, then the defender can shine. If the strikers and controllers are too high in AC, then the defender just becomes a guy who contributes but gets pushed to the second tier of importance.

Instead of defenders, they would just be meat.

 

[KarinsDad]

So low AC and player having fun is OK
So high AC and player having fun is OK

That's true.

But players that pay for high AC having a low AC and players that pay for a low AC having a high AC in the same game is probably not fun.

 

[Felon]

Why did you come here to discuss this?

To argue?

To justify to your players?

Obviously, you are ignoring the math. Did you even look at the chart? Do you not see the heavy armor lag mid-Paragon levels? You are ignoring the fact that the Cleric took a feat to get Scale and hence should have a better AC than the Rogue.

No, Karinsdad, I came here to listen to your snark--which is probably the same reason you come here. You are the one who has tried to make a simple discussion into a hostile confrontation. You could stand to chill out a little bit.

I looked at your numbers, and then I conceded that the numbers work against the heavy armor wearers in the paragon levels when the light armor wearers are starting to get their fourth +1 adjustment. So, not sure why you behave as if I ignored them. Probably because I still don't agree that going with the revised MW armor fixes everything. It creates a different skew in the other direction.

Your conclusion based on those numbers is skewed by your perception of who should be top dog. As you see it, the cleric spent a feat, and the rogue didn't, so there's an injustice in the rogue being even up with the cleric. A wizard or sorcerer or avenger could spend a feat to get leather, and they'd still be neck-and-neck with a rogue. Is that inequity? No, it's just that when it comes to armor proficiencies, not everyone's equal. The rogue gets leather, then is allowed to add his superlative Dex to it. The cleric gets chainmail, and adds nothing--they don't even let'im have a shield anymore. Seems to me the cleric is positioned to have a lower AC.

That's true.

But players that pay for high AC having a low AC and players that pay for a low AC having a high AC in the same game is probably not fun.

See, this is where you can show all the math you want, but it really comes down to personal bias. It seems you want the heavy armor wearers to come out ahead, because you perceive that they "paid for it". But again, a wizard that pays a feat--even two--to get better armor isn't suddenly entitled to leap to the front of the pack, is he?

And you sure as heck are not going to convince anyone else. Everyone who responded to you explained it and you still are disagreeing. And quite frankly, WotC disagrees with you as well.

KD, folks have told you to knock if off with the denigrating attitude for all the years you've been at ENWorld, and you persist. So, you should be able to sympathize with my unwillingness to simply concede to the majority simply because they're the majority.

Let me give you some backstory: when 4e came out, I was the first to post about the glaring inequity between giving weapon attacks the [W] variable and giving implement attacks a fixed number. The weapon users benefit from a hefty discrepancy in damage. Nobody agreed with me then. They insisted WotC knows best. They used math to support their arguments that a warlock, rogue, and ranger are on an equal footing. I was Henny Penny screaming the sky was falling, while everyone else was lost in the rapture of 4e.

I was also among the very first to pipe up and ask if anyone else noticed how grindy combat was in 4e, how players often shoot their wad of encounters and wind up hewing away at hundreds of HP with at-wills, and how a combination of high monster HP and a high whiff factor for attacks did not make for the quick battles 4e was supposed to deliver. I posted about it, and received very little support. Everyone else felt things ran smmoth as silk. They used math to show how battles would be wrapped up in a very reasonable time frame. Must be my party doing something wrong. Maybe not the right composition. I was a 4e-bashing Henny Penny again.

But over time, folks came around. Not everybody, of course--for every boy who cries wolf, there's someone who will insist the emperor's new clothes are fine--but enough to make me feel vindicated in the long run.