Party AC difference

[UngeheuerLich]

And just because you don´t see such encounters they are not possible? They are and they are perfectly viable. And if I played in a game you DM i would maybe do everything to shore up AC. And it is not wrong by any means.

But it is still good that such high AC differences exist.

A pally in plate can go up to 20 and a sorceer can go down to 13. And it is perfectly ok. The sorcerer is hit on an 8 and the pally is hit at 15. And with mark the sorcerer can still survive quite well and if 3 monsters mob up on the sorcerer they will take a lot of damage in response to that...

I don´t see any problem. Really,

 

[Nifft]

Uh huh. Where exactly are the low level powers and abilities that prevent the enemy from moving past the front rank?

Page 76, Combat Superiority.

Seriously, go read about the Fighter. Apparently you're in for a happy surprise.

No Defender can ever protect every single other member of his party for every other round. That's impossible.

The best he can typically do is hold down 1 to 3 foes situation depending. In a 5 foe scenario, that means that 2 to 4 other foes can attack whomever they want.

How does the Defender protect the Wizard from Artillery foes when he is busy locking down the Brutes?

If the Fighter can handle the Brutes, then the Striker can go engage the Artillery.

It seems like you're laboring under a serious misconception: the Fighter doesn't need to prevent all attacks on the Wizard. He just needs to prevent half of them. As to the rest: the few that can engage, and do hit, and aren't negated by defensive powers: they're why the Wizard gets Healing Surges, too.

The Fighter doesn't need to perfectly defend. All he needs to do is competently defend.

Cheers, -- N

 

[KarinsDad]

Page 76, Combat Superiority.

Seriously, go read about the Fighter. Apparently you're in for a happy surprise.

Apparently you haven't read it carefully enough.

Combat Superiority cannot prevent a foe from taking a wide detour around a Fighter. Combat Superiority cannot prevent a foe from shifting away from a Fighter and then charging a back rank PC. Combat Superiority does not prevent a foe from teleporting away from the Fighter. Combat Superiority cannot prevent an NPC from ignoring the Fighter completely.

There are ways around Combat Superiority.

So again, I ask you the exact same question:

Where exactly are the low level powers and abilities that prevent the enemy from moving past the front rank?

You were mistaken. There aren't any.

If the DM plays the Fighter as more sticky than he actually is by making dumb decisions for the NPCs, then yes it would be difficult to get past the Fighter.

But according to RAW, it's easy.

You are under a misconception as to how sticky Defenders actually are.

It seems like you're laboring under a serious misconception: the Fighter doesn't need to prevent all attacks on the Wizard. He just needs to prevent half of them.

Since I did not state that, it seems that you are under the misconception.

My only point was that it's easy to attack any PC on the board. Hence, any PC can be a target for any set of attacks and no PC should have an AC 6 lower than the best possible AC (without feats or powers) at level 1.

As to the rest: the few that can engage, and do hit, and aren't negated by defensive powers: they're why the Wizard gets Healing Surges, too.

The Fighter doesn't need to perfectly defend. All he needs to do is competently defend.

No doubt. That is why it is a feat and/or power tax for the Wizard or Sorcerer. The Defender cannot always competently defend them, hence, the Wizard or Sorcerer either takes the defensive feats and/or powers, or the Wizard or Sorcerer can spend a lot of time unconscious if the NPC foes are played intelligently.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

My only point was that it's easy to attack any PC on the board. Hence, any PC can be a target for any set of attacks and no PC should have an AC 6 lower than the best possible AC (without feats or powers) at level 1.

...

No doubt. That is why it is a feat and/or power tax for the Wizard or Sorcerer. The Defender cannot always competently defend them, hence, the Wizard or Sorcerer either takes the defensive feats and/or powers, or the Wizard or Sorcerer can spend a lot of time unconscious if the NPC foes are played intelligently.

a wizard doesn´t have an AC lower than 6 points below highest possible AC. Also you do a mistake: highest possible AC is no measure...

highest possible is paladin with shield and fullplate: AC 20 but this is an exeption just like AC lower than 14.

the average AC for level 1 is 16. This should be your point of comparison. A paladin can be 4 points higher and you sorcerer can be 4 points lower. terrible? no, not in the least.

Also you do a mistake when saying all people on the battlefield are good targets. Even if you can attack the sorcerer in the back rank. Too often it means that you are now in a flanked position and often enough you are now in a very bad tactical position. And maybe you take an OA for moving into such a bad position. Also there can be choke points and hindering terrain and a controller can make moving close to him an even worse idea with his spells...

also enemies don´t know that the AC of the sorcerer is that low. He can as well be an avenger with unarmed agility. Before having attacked the sorcerer you just don´t know that it is a good idea to focus on him. If all your foes always gank up on the sorcerer ignoring all other players you are clearly playing unfair, not intelligently.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Oh and the feat tax thing is just nonsense...

 

[eamon]

the average AC for level 1 is 16. This should be your point of comparison. A paladin can be 4 points higher and you sorcerer can be 4 points lower. terrible? no, not in the least.

I think if you look at actual parties that AC 16 is definitely below average. An 18+hide or chain+light shield are quite common - as are higher bonuses. On the other hand, lower bonuses are rare (though certainly occur).

Also you do a mistake when saying all people on the battlefield are good targets. Even if you can attack the sorcerer in the back rank. Too often it means that you are now in a flanked position and often enough you are now in a very bad tactical position. And maybe you take an OA for moving into such a bad position. Also there can be choke points and hindering terrain and a controller can make moving close to him an even worse idea with his spells...

If that's the case, then the tactics and room layout are advantageous - this is good, but it won't always be the case - and even if it's the case, it's still sometimes worth attacking the weaker target - it's just that much easier (violating marks just doesn't hurt that much unless you trigger the "nasty extra" - which I presume monsters don't know about in detail until the first time it's used - specifically I'd ignore options on the player's side as opposed to divine challenge's punishment). In any case, you're right that this is how this should work - from the parties perspective. However, that doesn't mean they always do work out that way.

also enemies don´t know that the AC of the sorcerer is that low. He can as well be an avenger with unarmed agility. Before having attacked the sorcerer you just don´t know that it is a good idea to focus on him. If all your foes always gank up on the sorcerer ignoring all other players you are clearly playing unfair, not intelligently.

This, I don't agree with. Barring visible cues, monsters will assume AC is that of a commoner. And in any case, just as I find it reasonable that it's visible in-game that a monster as reach and threatening reach, or that a polearm wielder is holding his weapon threateningly (has polearm gamble), I assume that much about how a person moves gives you a hint about how hard he'll be to hit. It's not like the battle in-game is occurring between featureless black balls, after all... Especially once combat has started and you've seen the various combatants move and attack.

If a player (or monster) wishes to bluff and appear more agile or less agile than he actually is, that's fine - and if the AC-granting ability is fairly subtle that might even be an easy bluff - but I don't think its believable that normally, generally it's hard to judge an opponents "AC" (or rather it's in-game equivalent of how hard something is to hit well). That mettle tank with a shield? Hard to hit. That super-agile little halfling with a defensive dagger? Hard to hit. That wizard over there that's steps just in the right spot to avoid attack but isn't armored? Easier, but not easy. The tough-looking guy with a nasty rod that's walking about a bit clumsily? Easy to hit (though he probably has a bunch of hit points).

Another advantage of that approach is that it makes playing the game easier - by assuming that the various opponents have a reasonable guess of each others combat prowess you're basically accounting for a bit of out-of-game player + DM knowledge, which means it's easier to avoid metagaming.

 

[eamon]

Oh and the feat tax thing is just nonsense...

Why is it just nonsense?

 

[Runestar]

Why is it just nonsense?

Because people are apparently capable of declining to take a strong feat in favour of a weaker one.

Despite any evidence to the contrary that they shouldn't.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

AC is not such a strong feat if you are not constantly attacked...

And also I don´t think it is a TAX. This is nonsense. You don´t have to pay it to have fun. Only if your DM demands it which is one kind of playstyle.

You could easily argue that every Character should be able to have a ranged option without spending a feat... a tax? No, because some classes are no ranged attackers by default.

16 AC is default. 17 with shield, but thats extra protection. As is hide + 18 or leather +20. Also lower than 14 is very rare, so even if you assume 17 to be the default, you don´t have a delta of more than 3 (+3 to -3)

I consider this a good value.

 

[blargney the second]

My fighter was running around with an AC 2-4 points lower than the rest of the party for many levels. (We didn't receive any heavy armors as treasure, so there wasn't much I could do about it.)

It was fine, but that's mostly because I was playing a Con secondary character with tons of surges. The presence of an AC-built paladin in the party helped quite a lot too.

I wouldn't have wanted the difference to get much worse than that though. Monsters were pretty much only missing me on a 5 or a 6. Any worse and I might as well have been wearing blue paint and feathers for protection.