Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MrMyth" data-source="post: 5130595" data-attributes="member: 61155">Sure. But I don't think it is requisite for the Defender to absorb all attacks in an encounter. In a 5 monster encounter, at least 1-2 will certainly get past the Defender and go threaten the squishies. Honestly, that is as it should be, and that is where other tactics come into play - the strikers focus on taking those threats down first, the wizard breaks out his own tricks to get away or reduce the threat those enemies offer via various debilitating conditions, the leader heals anyone who starts to get in trouble.  Is the Wizard's low AC going to mean they will go down in a single swing to the enemy that got to them? Probably not. If multiple enemies focus on them, then yeah, they won't stay standing long. But... should they be able to soak up as much punishment as the Fighter? I certainly don't think so. Of course, I'll admit that isn't really the argument on hand. It isn't a case of whether the Wizard should be less durable than the Fighter, but how much less durable they should be. And people's opinions will fall in different areas.  Here's the thing - a wizard who does have a high Int, leather armor proficiency, and some of the various wizards tricks (Shield, Staff of Defense, Blur, etc) is going to be pretty tough. If you make the base Wizard tougher, you risk having the tough Wizard overshoot the Fighter entirely - similar to the problems that cropped up with Avengers and Barbarians.  Now, that said, I think there is room to narrow the extremes. Making cloth a +1 armor bonus would honestly be a good start - Leather Armor Proficiency as a +2 AC boost makes it a hard feat to turn down, which is usually a sign of problematic design somewhere. On the other end of the extreme, maybe shields shouldn't give bonuses to defenses, but provide protection in another fashion.  But beyond that, I do think a Wizard or Sorcerer who invests absolutely nothing in defenses should be 6 or so points behind a tank that has focused heavily on defense. I agree that 9 is too much - though part of that came, in the earlier example given, from disparate gear as well.  In the end, if you want to limit those bonuses, you need to limit that factors that play into defenses. There is only so much room to do so without removing options entirely, or simply setting everyone to the default of having exactly the same AC.  At least these days the disparity still takes place within the range of the d20. If I need a 14 to hit the uber-defender, and an 8 to hit the frail wizard, they are still both affected by the roll of the dice.  The only real problem I see cropping up, honestly, is in temporary modifiers. I've seen a handful of those that are problematic. But the base numbers, and base variance, feels pretty much fine to me.</blockquote>

Verification