Official Rules Updates (March 02, 2010)

[Njall]

Except that you're beating on this monster at the same time, and it has a time to live of 10 rounds (let's say). So the extra point of AC is worthless, because it will be dead first either way.

(Sorry. Re-engaging lurk mode.

Spoiler

Resource attrition, you say? Look, a seagull!

)

Yes, but that's just an example
If you tone the numbers down the point still stands, aside from the fact that you might be fighting more than one monster at any given time.
Sure, it might be true that in the context of 4e, where the monsters tend to hit for low amounts and there's healing aplenty, optimizing for survability might be overkill, but that's another matter entirely.

 

[eamon]

Except that you're beating on this monster at the same time, and it has a time to live of 10 rounds (let's say). So the extra point of AC is worthless, because it will be dead first either way. )

Obviously, if you're going to win anyway, it's a moot point.

Presumably, you might not be guaranteed to win; or the effect of the hit is so nasty even one hit is too many (say, dominate), or you're one of the few in the party that can deal with the situation because of your high defense so you're holding the front line againt monsters that would normally be way out of your league - for example, typically what you'll see a warden do when he uses second wind.

Whatever the case, it's clearly beneficial to play to your strengths. People intuitively grasp this; you'll often see PC's build to choose offense over defense or vice versa - in fact, the whole role distribution somewhat hinges on that. The party as a whole benefits when easy-to-hit members don't invest in high defenses and hard-to-hit members do (assuming both investments grant similar bonuses) - and you'll naturally gravitate towards a lurker/soldier or striker/defender or whatever you want to call it distribution of tasks which accentuates the benefits of the choices made.

 

[occam]

I'm just going through the rules update, and noticed that the shaman's call spirit companion got updated. The update was intended to clarify that you can't conjure multiple spirit companions, but it seems to me that it also means you can use the power without dismissing your spirit companion first. That would mean that if you want to effectively teleport your spirit companion up to 20 squares, you can do so with a single minor action, instead of what I've done before: minor action to dismiss, another minor to recall the spirit. That's really nice.

If they had wanted to maintain the previous behavior, I think it would've been more straightforward to add something like "You cannot use this power while your spirit companion is present". I like it better the way they did it.

 

[fba827]

I'm just going through the rules update, and noticed that the shaman's call spirit companion got updated. The update was intended to clarify that you can't conjure multiple spirit companions, but it seems to me that it also means you can use the power without dismissing your spirit companion first. That would mean that if you want to effectively teleport your spirit companion up to 20 squares, you can do so with a single minor action, instead of what I've done before: minor action to dismiss, another minor to recall the spirit. That's really nice.

If they had wanted to maintain the previous behavior, I think it would've been more straightforward to add something like "You cannot use this power while your spirit companion is present". I like it better the way they did it.

Yeah, I noticed that too. While I do like it this errata-ed way, I can't help but think they meant it more the way you suggested it be written.

 

[Elric]

To answer my own question (slightly updated the phrasing)

Suppose you currently get hit 10% of the time by AC attacks and 80% of the time by FRW attacks.

FRW attacks and AC attacks are equally common, equally damaging/status effect inflicting, and tend to come in equally difficult encounters.

The equal FRW and AC targeting isn't because opponents are targeting you based on what your strengths and weaknesses are; it's essentially random. Likewise, you can't specifically target enemies that attack your FRWs instead of AC to kill first.

Opponents always hit you on a 19 vs AC (16 vs. FRW) and miss on a 1 without the natural 1s rule (for FRW an average enemy hits you on a 5+; this condition just ensures that your defense bonuses don't "go to waste").

Which do you prefer: +1 to AC or +4 to all FRWs?

You should take +4 to all FRWs. +1 AC negates half of the attacks that would otherwise hit you vs. AC, and +4 FRWs negates only a quarter of the attacks that would otherwise hit you vs FRWs. However, this doesn't mean that you should pick +1 AC. You need to go back to which blocks more absolute attacks (as I've assumed equal damage/status effects across AC vs. FRW attacks).

Since many more attacks would hit you on FRW than AC (equal number of attacks directed against each, but the FRW attacks are more likely to hit), the absolute fraction of attacks blocked is much higher, 0.1, for FRWs, than the fraction of attacks blocked for AC, 0.025.

As absolute attacks are what counts, you could get there directly by calculating 50% of attacks vs. FRW * 0.2 chance that each will miss b/c of +4 FRW= 0.1 fraction of attacks blocked. 50% of attacks vs. AC * 0.05 chance that each will miss b/c of +1 AC= 0.025 fraction of attacks blocked.

An analysis that gets you +1 AC as the answer here is flawed.

 

[DracoSuave]

To answer my own question (slightly updated the phrasing)



You should take +4 to all FRWs. +1 AC negates half of the attacks that would otherwise hit you vs. AC, and +4 FRWs negates only a quarter of the attacks that would otherwise hit you vs FRWs.

However, since many more attacks would hit you on FRW than AC (equal number of attacks directed against each, but the FRW attacks are more likely to hit), the absolute fraction of attacks blocked is much higher, 0.1, for FRWs, than the fraction of attacks blocked for AC, 0.025.

An analysis that gets you +1 AC as the answer here is flawed.

Incorrect analysis but the right conclusion.

Let n be the amount of damage a typical attack does.

'FRW and AC attacks are equally common.'

This means that for every AC attack, there is an FRW attack.

+1 AC eliminates 1 outcome per 40 hits. That means that it reduces DPR incoming by n/40.

+4 to all NADS eliminates 4 outcomes per 40 hits. That reduces DPR incoming by n/10.

n/10 > n/40.

The relative chance of each hitting is irrelevant. You take n/10 less damage with the +4 to all defenses. Less incoming damage is less incoming damage.

 

[Elric]

The relative chance of each hitting is irrelevant. You take n/10 less damage with the +4 to all defenses. Less incoming damage is less incoming damage.

Indeed, that's the point I was trying to get across.

Edit: well, looking at my post, I should have worded this more clearly.

Absolute attacks are what count. You can get this directly from a change in defenses, or you can do the percentage of attacks that would have hit that the change in defenses blocks, times the number of attacks that hit. The fractions you end up with are identical.

What's wrong is when people stop after thinking something like "My Fort is very high (20% of attacks against it hit), so +2 Fort blocks half of the hits against it. That makes it a lot more valuable than +2 Will, which is hit half the time so +2 Will only blocks a fifth of the hits against Will."

 

[Mistwell]

I am happy about the hide expertise change, in that I felt it gave away my wardens ability to other classes for the small cost of a single feat.

 

[brehobit]

I am happy about the hide expertise change, in that I felt it gave away my wardens ability to other classes for the small cost of a single feat.

Agreed. The barbarian keeps bouncing between great and poor with these changes.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

it should scale to 2/3/4 and its suddenly fine