Masterwork from Adventurer's Vault: Help Me Grock It

[Felon]

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.

OK, I'm going to state the following, and you guys can show me where our disconnect is:

Without MW armor, there's an eventual and gradual increase in AC for light armor wearers that gets severe in the epic levels.

With PHB MW armor, there's an eventual and abrupt and severe increase in AC for everyone that more-or-less keeps everyone on a level playing field.

With stealth-errata MW armor, there's a gradual increase in AC for heavy armor wearers that starts at mid-heroic and doesn't smooth out until mid-paragon, where it's more of a slight bias to the heavy armor wearers.

Does that all seem to be the gist of the matter?

 

[Felon]

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.

Your contention is basically that the defender should not just have a top-notch AC, but an AC that's better that of the other roles; they are weakened if their AC is not better than everyone else. What does that contention entail for defenders that aren't designed to wear heavy armor, (and by extension, heavy MW armor) , such as the swordmage and warden?

I think a defender should have a top-notch AC, but not necessarily one that's utterly unattainable by anyone else. And that's represented in my party, where the defender does indeed have the best AC as a result of his choices. Beyond that, defenders have a suite of advantageous class features that make them effective in their roles as defenders. AC isn't the only or even the main criterion--not IMO anyway.

 

[Flipguarder]

Im currently playing a ranger who wears plate. When I saw what ac light armor will get me in later levels I was a little pissed that I spent 3 feats to lower my ac.

Plate should grant better ac then any other armor because its a clear tier format, each one being harder to obtain than the last. I understand what you are saying about having an unobtainable ac but I think that makes sense. Swordmages and Wardens have other abilities and more mobility that make up for the fact that they will get hit more than a paladin, who has very few abilties to lower the amount of damage he takes, and less mobility too.

Without the MW rules, an archer ranger and maybe even a trickster rogue will pretty much always have a better ac than your tank.

If thats ok with you then fantastic, you can just ignore the mw rules. But that is what those rules are trying to correct, and I think its a reasonable try at that.

 

[Felon]

Im currently playing a ranger who wears plate. When I saw what ac light armor will get me in later levels I was a little pissed that I spent 3 feats to lower my ac.

Plate should grant better ac then any other armor because its a clear tier format, each one being harder to obtain than the last. I understand what you are saying about having an unobtainable ac but I think that makes sense.

The tiered armor feat progression serves those classes (like say, the cleric or sorcerer) who have armor proficiency options that could be improved upon without sacrificing an AC bonus (be it Dex, Int, or a class feature) that they may have. Now, your ranger is a nimble skirmisher--it makes perfect sense to me that he can dodge and weave around attacks and thus have as good of an AC as a guy in full plate.

Clearly, you don't agree, and feel that strapping on they heaviest armor a given character can wear should be the best option bar none. In other worlds, old-school D&D. Fair enough. To each their own. But that doesn't indicate anything's broken by letting the ranger have a top-knotch AC in hide armor.

Swordmages and Wardens have other abilities and more mobility that make up for the fact that they will get hit more than a paladin, who has very few abilties to lower the amount of damage he takes, and less mobility too.

This is all pretty subjective. IME, paladins are fine. They certainly have as much damage mitigation as a swordmage. And fighters...geez, they are so fine. But at least we seem to be able to agree then that defenders as a group don't necessarily need a better AC than every other class in order to fulfill their role.

Without the MW rules, an archer ranger and maybe even a trickster rogue will pretty much always have a better ac than your tank.

If thats ok with you then fantastic, you can just ignore the mw rules. But that is what those rules are trying to correct, and I think its a reasonable try at that.

I don't have a big beef with the PHB MW rules, so I'll probably introduce them in an appropriate fashion. I'm on the fence with the stealth-errata MW. Clearly, as every bit of math here has shown, it just swings the pendulum in the favor of heavy armor weaerers until the light armor wearers can play catch up with their ability score increases.

 

[Flipguarder]

After looking at the phb mw rules once more Id have to agree that those should cover any high level disparity due to ability scores.

But factoring in your idea about how ac should be all near the same level. Would you allow as dm a ranger to just take one feat to get plate instead of 3? I mean if its all near the same level then why would a ranger have to take 3 feats to get similar ac. Or would you just say "tough luck" because they are doing something thats not "smart" according to the rules that you consider reasonable.

Im seriously not trying to attack you, but it seems foolish to take feats to get better armor if they all give similar ac bonuses in the end.

 

[KarinsDad]

With PHB MW armor, there's an eventual and abrupt and severe increase in AC for everyone that more-or-less keeps everyone on a level playing field.

So, is your claim is that regardless of armor type, regardless of feats taken, that the AC should always be about the same for all of the PCs?

Or are you talking about the AC boost with +4 armor in the PHB? If so, what's your point about it?

With stealth-errata MW armor, there's a gradual increase in AC for heavy armor wearers that starts at mid-heroic and doesn't smooth out until mid-paragon, where it's more of a slight bias to the heavy armor wearers.

This is why I am looking at you as if you grew a third eye. Compared to Light Armor, there is no gradual increase in AC for Heavy Armor. Compared to the PHB there is, but the PHB has a big dip in AC for Heavy Armor from mid-heroric to mid-paragon. The reason for the gain is to fix the faulty dip.

Look at the chart. With the stealth errata, the ACs always stay within one of their original delta between light and heavy armor.

Let's take Leather vs. Chain with no feats:

1   10 10  [b]11   9 10[/b]  21   9  9
2   10 10  [b]12   9 10[/b]  22   9  9
3   10 10  [b]13   8  9[/b]  23   8  8
4   10 10  14   9  9  24   8  8
5    9  9  15   8  8  25   7  7
[b]6   10 11[/b]  16  10 10  [b]26   9 10[/b]
[b]7    9 10[/b]  17   9  9  [b]27   8  9[/b]
8   10 10  18   9  9  28   9  9
9    9  9  19   8  8  29   8  8
10   9  9  20   8  8  30   8  8

With the stealth errata, there are 7 levels out of 30 where the heavy armor has a slight edge here. If a DM is worried about it, he can always hand out magical light armor at a slightly earlier level to balance it out.

Without the stealth errata, the light armors dominate heavily in mid-paragon to the point that there are 13 levels out of 30 where the light armor is better, even 2 better (instead of just 1). This is a lot more severe of a problem to address.

The stealth errata is what keeps everyone on the same playing field, not the original rules.

Assuming a starting 18 AC stat for the light armors:

Cloth = AC x
Leather = AC x+2
Hide = AC x+3
Chain = AC x+2
Scale = AC x+3
Plate = AC x+4

For all intents and purposes, there are only 3 ACs here (almost nobody uses just cloth) until people take shields or armor proficiency and then it jumps to 6different ACs. So yes, the PC in Plate and Shield should have an AC 4 higher than the PC in Leather. The PCs in Scale should have an AC 1 higher than the PC in Leather.

It's a balance/fairness issue and the reason WotC changed it.

 

[KarinsDad]

Clearly, as every bit of math here has shown, it just swings the pendulum in the favor of heavy armor weaerers until the light armor wearers can play catch up with their ability score increases.

Only clear in your mind. The math illustrates differently.

The math here shows that the MW rules keep the two types of armor equidistant apart (most of the time) based on where they are supposed to be.

 

[Styracosaurus]

If the fighter/paladin are supposed to jump into the melee and absorb attacks then either they need tons of HP or a higher armor class to limit the damage.

The strikers (and lightly armored defenders) tend to have mobility on their side. As you note, the lightly armored AC is still quite decent for most encounters.

The tanks should be blunt force trauma. The rogues should be in-and-out of traffic. Both sides reduce damage taken by their own advantages. I feel like without the MW armor, the tanks are unilaterally disarming themselves.

My concern about every edition of DnD so far has been that the character classes do not differentiate themselves enough, so I like having the MW armor to further separate the tanks and the strikers.

A tough fight should put the party on their heels. The fighters should be scrambling to protect the squishy members and the squishy members should have reason to fear the math. A range of 30% to 70% on attack success should keep the armor meaningful but not overwhelming. Given the low monster damage output, the variation in AC will not automatically drop you into a TPK.

 

[mach1.9pants]

Maybe some pictures would help.

Same level original rules:

View attachment 40205

Same level revised rules:

View attachment 40206


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.

What colour is what armour, please?

 

[KarinsDad]

What colour is what armour, please?

green was plate plus heavy shield (AC 20 at level one)
red was scale (AC 17 at level one)
blue was leather w/ +4 starting Dex (AC 16 at level one)

as per the chart in post #10.