Party AC difference

[Mengu]

What should be the difference between the highest and lowest AC in a party?

When someone has too high of an AC, DM gets frustrated by missing them, DM increases monster levels or starts using lots of NAD attacking monsters, which hoses the whole party.

When someone has too low of an AC, he becomes a door mat, the healer gets tired of healing that party member, and the party gets tired of stopping because that party member is out of surges again.

So I believe, there is some benefit to keeping the AC of party members within a few points of each other for a smoother party dynamic and party/DM relationship. What would you say is a good range?

 

[Amaroq]

We've definitely run into this problem, but I'm not sure what the solution is.

Part of it was, playing the only Defender in a party with ranged leader/striker support, I wound up taking the brunt of the attacks, so I wound up in an "AC vs Attack Bonus" arms race with the DM: taking any feat, magic item, etc, that I could my hands on to get a bonus to AC had me start with an AC about 5 or 6 better than the rest of the party, but then I had up to +5 in conditional bonuses which could drive me up to the point that occasionally a level-appropriate monster would miss on a 17 or an 18.

That had knock-on effects: either the monsters needed better attack-bonus, which saw them chew up the ranged players if they got past me, or they needed to absolutely whomp when they hit, which led to a "dropped in one round" experience when I took two crits and two hits on the day the dice decided my luck had run out.

So I think there's definitely something to be said for having the AC's be within range ... on the other hand, there's a certain feeling of invulnerability one can really enjoy dancing around the battlefield with a high AC, accepting opportunity attacks because they don't worry you, etc.

Like everything, I suspect its a balance.

 

[Dice4Hire]

Well, 4E seems to try hard to minimize the differences in AC between different party members.

That said, he AC system does not really work perfectly in my experience, at least the balance between light and heavy AC. Partly this is due to the ability score adding onto AC, which favors some light armor classes (wizards and rogues) and does not to some (warlocks being one)

But that said, as a DM I would prefer there not be huge differences in AC or even NADs as that allows the DM to be less proactive against one character. If the monsters cannot hurt one character, then the monsters will tend to ignore that character, which throws party roels out of whack.

Also, before the Hide Armor Expertise change, it was possible for primal classes to have the highest armor in the game. In myface to face, the barbarian had the highest AC by 3 points, which should not be possible.

 

[CovertOps]

There are only so many results you can get on a single d20. If you view them as a baseline plus or minus some value like x +/- 10 then you see that you really only get half of the d20 as a max possible variance range. In my game I am starting to look at character defenses and to hit and if I see someone seriously lagging behind then I'll talk to the player about what they can do to bring them up to the rest of the party.

I'm really displeased with the variation in NAD defenses as at first level you can have anywhere from 10-17 in a given defense based on class and stats. This is bad design.

 

[renau1g]

Personally I find that if 1 PC has too high an AC (say defender) the monsters willl quickly realize it and attack the squishies (especially easy on wardens and paladins). This is why I love shielding swordmages, they stop at least 7-8 damage from harming their ally. It's good and fighter has the way to stop the shift so they're nice and sticky.

I hate the nerf to swarm druids as now they're less useful as an off-tank and have much lower AC than a wizard

 

[renau1g]

I'm really displeased with the variation in NAD defenses as at first level you can have anywhere from 10-17 in a given defense based on class and stats. This is bad design.

If a PC dumps a stat ah well, they know that going in. If you're a rageblood barbarian going with 16/16/12/12/10/8 you know that you're NADS are going to be low. If you distribute them a bit more evenly then you can do better

 

[mkill]

This poll is missing the point. The question is not what AC the other party members have, but what attack bonus the monsters have that you fight.

The game is balanced around the idea that the standard monster hits the standard non-defender PC of the same level with a chance of 50%.

If you look at the monster creation guidelines, this sets average AC for all PCs at 15+level. This value more or less holds true from level 1 to 30. Everything above that is good AC, anything below that is bad AC.

Example: The group I DM'ed had a 10th-level sorcerer with AC 19. Even worse, that guy had no sense for personal security and always tried to attack stuff with Sorcerous Blade Channeling in melee. Level 10 monsters could roll ridiculously low and still hit him. The PC was always bloodied in one or two rounds, and it's a fricking miracle (and graciousness on the DM side) that he only went down once.

The 10th-level Genasi Swordmage in the same group had AC 28, which is standard defender AC for that level. It's not that the AC span between him and the sorcerer was too wide, the sorcerer's AC was just ridiculously bad.

Caveat 1: The DM can adjust standard monster level up or down one or two depending on how well-optimized the party is. But this means monster damage, defenses and general nastiness also go up or down. It's not possible to only raise or lower monster attack ratings for one character whose AC is off the charts up or down.

Caveat 2: Some classes have innate defensive abilities that are calculated in. I'm talking about the Warlock's Shadow Walk etc.

Caveat 3: Monster melee attacks target AC more often, while monster ranged attacks target NADs more often. That is why AC is somewhat more important for melee characters, while ranged combatants can focus on NADs.

Caveat 4: Defenders are expected to invite monster attacks, but shake them off more easily. That is why their AC should be better than average, but not at unhittable levels. The sweet spot is between 16+level and 20+level.

Caveat 5: AC is not the only important figure in survivability. Also consider NADs, the ability to generate temp hp, better/more saves, self-healing, concealment/invisibility etc.

Caveat 6: Strikers are a magnet for monster attacks. Striker AC can never be high enough.

Caveat 7: When you consider raising AC, remember that everything has an opportunity cost. The feats, powers and magic items you spend on raising your AC cannot be spend on offense, mobility, and other defenses.

 

[DracoSuave]

This poll is missing the point. The question is not what AC the other party members have, but what attack bonus the monsters have that you fight.

The game is balanced around the idea that the standard monster hits the standard non-defender PC of the same level with a chance of 50%.

This is an assumption with a lack of evidence.

If you look at the monster creation guidelines, this sets average AC for all PCs at 15+level. This value more or less holds true from level 1 to 30. Everything above that is good AC, anything below that is bad AC.

This is a conclusion based on an assumption with a lack of evidence.

Example: The group I DM'ed had a 10th-level sorcerer with AC 19. Even worse, that guy had no sense for personal security and always tried to attack stuff with Sorcerous Blade Channeling in melee. Level 10 monsters could roll ridiculously low and still hit him. The PC was always bloodied in one or two rounds, and it's a fricking miracle (and graciousness on the DM side) that he only went down once.

Having powerful ranged and area attack powers effectively combined with utility powers that can negate the occasional attack reduce the amount of incoming damage by a non-trivial amount. It's not something you can simply quantify like AC...

...however bad play decisions can never mitigate this... 19-15=4 points of AC to make up. At minimum, 2 of that is enhancement bonus; did he -start- with a 12 in his Strength or Dexterity?!? As a sorcerer?!?

Either he's built a half-assed sorcerer, or he's not got the right armor for the job; i.e., he's not got enhancement bonuses. Or both.

I just built a Human Sorcerer, starts with 16 Cha, 16 Str pre-racial, and at 10th level, his AC was 21 with +2 armor-- there's shinanegans here.

The 10th-level Genasi Swordmage in the same group had AC 28, which is standard defender AC for that level. It's not that the AC span between him and the sorcerer was too wide, the sorcerer's AC was just ridiculously bad.

And there's no reason it has to be that bad. It was just bad.

 

[Jhaelen]

Shouldn't a pc's role also be part of the equation? It's pretty clear the difference in AC between party members with the same role should differ by much. But should a controller or a striker really have the same AC as a defender or leader?

 

[DracoSuave]

Shouldn't a pc's role also be part of the equation? It's pretty clear the difference in AC between party members with the same role should differ by much. But should a controller or a striker really have the same AC as a defender or leader?

Not necessarily. Avengers, for example, have pretty good AC for a striker, and wizards as well can have plate-level.