Party AC difference

[UngeheuerLich]

This poll lacks: who cares without an additional clause...

so i voted 6-7

 

[eamon]

I'm not sure I agree with all that. Perusing the compendium for 1st level monsters reveals that the maximum attack vs Reflex is +6, for a single named NPC. There are a number of +5s, but +4 and +2 are more common. A 16 Ref vs a +2 is solidly good, and you'll notice the difference between 16 and 12 vs the +4 right away (particularly if that +4 comes from a Fire Beetle. Yeesh!).

I based myself on the MM statistics as posted in another thread. Presumably, these are accurate, if not, please post that there.

For extra info, I decided to look at all standard level 1 monsters in MM2 (minions, elites + solos should be similar, but they may be subtly different and in any case, this is less to check.

Blood Hawk: +6 vs. AC
Bullywug Mucker: +4 vs. AC, +5 vs. Fort
Fell Taint Lasher: +5 vs. Ref, +5 vs. Will
Fell Taint Pulsar: +4 vs. Ref, +6 vs. Ref. +4(multi) vs. Ref
Goblin Acolyte of Maglubiyet: +6 vs. AC, +5(sometimes multi) vs. Fort

I stand by my analysis; attacks vs. NAD's are less that 2 lower than those vs. AC (on average), despite more commonly being multi-target. Not a single creature has the +2 bonus you claim is more common. If you check the MM, you'll see that there too all creatures that have attack bonuses from +4 to +6 regardless of whether they attack AC or NAD's, with just one exception (the stormclaw scorpion, with a +8 vs. AC attack and a +6 vs. Fort attack).

In short, based on the published guidelines and based on both MM's, to hit approximate equally often, NAD's should be at most 2 lower on average to be on par with AC.

In contrast, a +8 vs AC is pretty common, and there's a +11 vs AC in the group. +6 and +7 vs AC is routine.

This is simply false - perhaps you happened to check very peculiar distribution of monsters that was neither from MM1 nor MM2?

The earlier conclusion stands; if NADs are to be hit about as reliably as AC (i.e. 45-50% of the time vs. average PC's) then the average NAD should be just 1 or 2 lower than the average AC - i.e. at least 15.

 

[eamon]

I'm not really sure what conclusion I'm going for here - just figured I'd toss my player's numbers out and see whether that helped informed the discussion any. I think the system probably isn't perfect, and in an idealized world, non-AC defenses would be a point or two higher compared to AC... but I don't think the lack is the end of the world, by any means, and what we do have works remarkably well, even at the higher levels.

This is precisely my opinion. Note also that in your party, almost everyone has taken new "feat tax" NAD defenses feat, and even so their NAD defenses aren't up to par.

These new defense feats really are math-fix feats, and NAD's start out at least 1 point too low.

I'm annoyed at the situation not because it's unplayable - as you say, it works - I'm annoyed at the unnecessarily poor design mucking up an otherwise well-balanced game. It simply comes across as careless - and (obviously, otherwise I wouldn't be posting here) I care about the game, so that bothers me.

 

[Rachel]

First off: I think this a perfectly reasonable way of playing things, so take the rest of this post not as criticism but as an explanation of an alternate view I personally prefer ...

How much intelligence is required to attack a good target? If you look at animals, they're obviously quite capable of picking an advantageous location (for offense and defense), and running when they can't win. I'd say most animal-level creatures should instinctively realize when an opponent doesn't look like a good target.

Adding strategically placed obstacles to shape the battlefield in your favor requires planning - attacking from a flanking position (or attacking the most attractive reachable target in sight) simply requires instinct. In my world(s), even a zombie has enough instinct to attack the juicy looking fat-guy over there in preference to the tin can in front of him (though not enough intelligence to judge the indirect risk involved in picking that target - say, by entering a flanked position or whatnot)

Also perfectly reasonable and I totally get what youre saying.

Edit: Not to quibble, and youre point not withstanding...zombies are mindless creatures that as far as I know would just go at whatever they can get to. It's just how they are.

 

[Storminator]

This is simply false - perhaps you happened to check very peculiar distribution of monsters that was neither from MM1 nor MM2?

I checked every level 1 monster, without regard for source or role. Looking back again, most of the high attack monsters are from modules.

PS

 

[Mengu]

Here is another situation.

Player 1: Wants to play a Fire Genasi Fire Dragon Sorcerer, going with a fire theme all around, starting stats Str 16, Con 12, Dex 13, Int 10, Wis 10, Cha 17, by level 6, Str/Cha get +1 bumps. Went with feats that focus on the genasi and dragon sorcerer aspects, picking Primordial Surge, Firepulse Master, Arcane familiar (dragonling). Then wanted training in perception and a bit of healing, so chose Bardic Dilettante. Currently has +1 cloth armor, sitting at AC 17.

Player 2: Wants to play the paladin tank, upgrades armor to +2 at first opportunity at level 6 for +2 layered plate, sitting at AC 26.

I don't feel like either player has done anything wrong, but with them ending up with 9 points of difference in AC, when DM uses monsters that have a reasonable shot at hitting the paladin, say needing a 14 to hit, they end up hitting the Sorcerer on a 5 which happens entirely too frequently.

The system doesn't "protect" against a high variance in defenses (or attack bonuses for that matter). So a bit of burden seems to fall on the DM (and players) to moderate the gap.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

it is reasonable and ok. Noone did anything wrong and you are still in a range where the game is playable... you can survive some hits. The palasin has means to protect your squishies

 

[Nifft]

We're all 11th level.

Fighter: AC 25
Bard: AC 27
Wizard: AC 27
Paladin: AC 28

Cheers, -- N

 

[DracoSuave]

Here is another situation.

Player 1: Wants to play a Fire Genasi Fire Dragon Sorcerer, going with a fire theme all around, starting stats Str 16, Con 12, Dex 13, Int 10, Wis 10, Cha 17, by level 6, Str/Cha get +1 bumps. Went with feats that focus on the genasi and dragon sorcerer aspects, picking Primordial Surge, Firepulse Master, Arcane familiar (dragonling). Then wanted training in perception and a bit of healing, so chose Bardic Dilettante. Currently has +1 cloth armor, sitting at AC 17.

Player 2: Wants to play the paladin tank, upgrades armor to +2 at first opportunity at level 6 for +2 layered plate, sitting at AC 26.

I don't feel like either player has done anything wrong, but with them ending up with 9 points of difference in AC, when DM uses monsters that have a reasonable shot at hitting the paladin, say needing a 14 to hit, they end up hitting the Sorcerer on a 5 which happens entirely too frequently.

The system doesn't "protect" against a high variance in defenses (or attack bonuses for that matter). So a bit of burden seems to fall on the DM (and players) to moderate the gap.

Well, one thing is that characters that lag behind in AC should -probably- get the magic armor first. Given that +2 equipment's been available in parcels since level 2, there's no reason he should have only a +1.

It's not much of a difference, but that, plus leather armor proficiency makes a huge difference for sorcerers.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I believe the difference in AC between the sneak thief and the scale mail fighter IMC is 12. Kind of wreaks havoc with the expected damage calculations.

Then your sneak thief is doing something very,very wrong. His primary stat boost AC, and it's by far the most important stat that he has.

To get 12 points of difference he would have to have a stat of 10 and be wearing no armor...