Shaman AC too low?

[Ceraus]

So, the Ranger, with his Strength has the stats for heavy armor (Str 13, Con 13), but the Shaman, with his Constitution doesn't have the stats for heavy armor?

They're in the same boats. If Ranger's got no problem, Shaman's got no problem.

Yeah... I could have been clearer.

Str Rangers are melee guys, thus are expected to have at least 13 Con, which is pretty easy to get. Don't tell me otherwise.

Con Shamans, from what I've read here, are supposed to hide and not really exist on the battlefield. Their only use for Str is to get heavy armor.

And keep in mind that I do think Str Rangers are badly designed AC-wise, just like Star Warlocks and Con Chamans. However, their stats are very well-suited to heavy armor feat purchase, and at worst, they have great incentive to boost their Dex (my game's ranger does so and doesn't suffer from his average Wis). In other words, despite their bad design, they can very easily get over their AC issue.

Star Warlocks and Con Shamans, on the other hand, need to buy some Str just to be eligible for heavy armor. They also wouldn't get considerable benefit from pumping an AC stat (especially Star Warlocks, who would lose attack).

 

[JonnyDoH]

Con Shamans, from what I've read here, are supposed to hide and not really exist on the battlefield. Their only use for Str is to get heavy armor.

Okay, yes to your last statement-- their only use to for Str is to get heavy armor. But they shouldn't need to.

I disagree with the idea that they're supposed to hide and not really "exist" on the battlefield. Party Design should be around covering other player's weaknesses. Who do you run with? Does everyone expect you to be Rambo and able to completely fend for yourself? That's not the game we're playing here.

As I said before, you need to think in terms of tactics and why certain powers are given to the Protector/Con Shaman. If you look at the majority of his likely abilities, his allies must be directly adjacent to his Spirit creature in order to derive benefits. This does *not* mean that he's elsewhere hiding behind a rock-- far from it. With his weapon proficiency in longspear he, too, is directly adjacent to his spirit companion, happily stabbing away from a square away from an enemy (if you choose to play your shaman that way-- I feel that the longspear is a waste-- but a notable hint on what his positioning in the party should be).

In other words, the Con Shaman is built around a party designed to move like a Phalanx. You're all grouped up: Defenders in front, Strikers in the middle, Spirit Creature a the Center, Leaders in back. Any deviation from this possibility is like taking a piece of armor from a tank and tying it around the neck of an infantryman. Sure, it'll give him protection, but neither the hunk of armor nor the soldier is built for that purpose. Better to put the soldier in the tank (and working with others to operate it) than have him try to aspire to be it on his own.

Also, from another thread:

Just got back from the official WotC forums, where I was reading a thread about how nasty Attacks vs. Will can be. Dominated every turn, blah blah.

Know what came next? Of course you do: a long series of comments in which characters with high Will defenses were described.

The problem with these threads (and yes, they happen on ENWorld too) is that collectively they create a vast circular discussion.

"Low Will defense? Raise it at the expense of feats that increase damage."

"Low damage output? Raise it at the expense of attribute distribution that raises your AC."

"Low AC? Raise it at the expense of your Fort."

Etc.

Ad nauseum.

Fade to black.


Almost all of these discussions completely ignore the elephant in the room: D&D in all it's guises is a matter of balance, tradeoffs and prioritization. You may be weak all over, or you may have a single Achilles Heel. The one thing that is simply NOT an option, short of Gestalt characters or 40-point buy, is to have no weaknesses at all.

So a request please: If you are going to suggest a solution to such a problem, please bear in mind that the solution has to work holistically.

Otherwise, it is nothing but a comb-over.

Rant complete. Entering maintenance cycle. Power off.

 

[Ceraus]

Does everyone expect you to be Rambo and able to completely fend for yourself?

No, I don't believe every class must have high AC (for which Rambo is an appropriate analogy). I also know that everyone has at least one weak defense (except Thaneborn Barbarians, apparently) and that it's part of the balance.

However, I believe that every character deserves scaling AC.

AC is probably targeted half of the time, especially by basic attacks (among which opportunity attacks) and minions.

Not everyone has a high AC. The best Paladins have easily 8 more than the worst Sorcerors. They have the same edge on Con Shamans. However, by level 30, the Sorcerer can be expected to still be 8 points behind (probably less), but the Con Shaman will be 11 points behind because his AC didn't scale.

That's the problem I see. AC is too important a defense for it not to scale for every class.

I don't care how well a party's organized: enemy archers will do a number on the Con Shaman, and there are always situations that turn for the worst -- a little AC cushion is essential in those cases. How much can one really stay away from attacks against his AC?

Also, don't forget that the spirit has the same abyssal AC.

 

[JonnyDoH]

However, I believe that every character deserves scaling AC.

Ah, okay, I see your point now, and perhaps I missed it from the earlier posts.

You bring up a very good point; I concede that scaling AC is valuable, and I can recognize the need to boost that up... eventually (when levels and feats permit that luxury). However, too often players get it in their head to boost that right away-- at the expense of their characters' specialties in the now.

The end effect being that you'll have a first level character clad in chain mail but unable to use any of their class abilities because their primary stat is too low. What's the use if your single Defender dies because the one roll you needed for your protecting strike to save him missed by two points? Sorry, I've been there. Better to have everyone specialize in their chosen abilities in the outset, and then generalize as time allows you. That caveat needs to be added to the whole "Shaman needs more AC" thing.



...Hmm. In analysing the Protector Shaman's later abilities, it seems as though he has some daily and encounter powers that help make up for the unscaling AC as well. Not enough to count all the time, but possibly enough to counter a volley or two from those hypothetical gangs of enemy archers. Check out: Winter Wind Spirit (L7, Encounter), Rockshield Spirits (L10, Utility/Daily), Fateweaver's Shield (L16, Utility/Encounter), Ironborn Spirit (L25, Daily)

 

[Herschel]

AC is probably targeted half of the time, especially by basic attacks (among which opportunity attacks) and minions.

I understand your point about scaling, I just disagree. And this one strikes me as almost funny. Where are you placing teh Shaman that he's getting his AC attacked so much? Are you going by theory on playing without a defender, etc.?

 

[Piratecat]

Slight hijack, speaking only for myself: I'm of the opinion that getting hit actually makes the game more fun. It adds tension and drama. Of my favorite fights over the years, none of them involved fights where I stayed virtually uninjured the entire time.

As a result, the shaman AC issue doesn't bother me unless it makes the character dangerously unplayable.

 

[Mengu]

I understand your point about scaling, I just disagree. And this one strikes me as almost funny. Where are you placing teh Shaman that he's getting his AC attacked so much? Are you going by theory on playing without a defender, etc.?

How many defenders are there in a group? One or two? How many monsters do you fight at a time, 5? 8? 10? 15? Whenever monsters outnumber the PC's (which is not unusual at all), how many of them are the defenders going to be able to control?

In the games we play, the back line is being engaged by skirmishers, lurkers, minions, etc. about half the time. I don't imagine this is unusual.

So starting out with 13-14 AC can be troublesome. You might get by at first level, but by second level, you'll definitely need some boost. I think chain, or leather plus primary stat, or hide plus secondary stat, or some sort of class bonus that equates to these, is the minimum one should soot for by level 2. Otherwise, you may be too much of a weak link in the group becoming a bigger drain on healing resources than you should be.

Even the Star Warlock is actually in better shape than the Bear Shaman because of Shadow Walk, the way Dire Radiance works, and access to some evasive utilities. The poor shaman doesn't even benefit from his own protecting strike.

Having said all that, I don't think it's that big a deal to stick a 13 into strength to get chain at first level. It opens up a few nice multiclass options too, not to mention light shield proficiency if you feel like it.

 

[Black Knight Irios]

Once again, I fail to see the problem.

For the cost of STR 13 and 1 feat (armor prof chain) you get an AC that is at level 30 two (2!) points lower than that of a plate armor user w/o a shield.

Did I miss something?

 

[Cadfan]

Slight hijack, speaking only for myself: I'm of the opinion that getting hit actually makes the game more fun. It adds tension and drama. Of my favorite fights over the years, none of them involved fights where I stayed virtually uninjured the entire time.

As a result, the shaman AC issue doesn't bother me unless it makes the character dangerously unplayable.

If your bear shaman starts with a +1 bonus to intelligence or dexterity, he will begin the game with an AC of 13.

If you subsequently improve his wisdom and constitution as he levels up, he will improve his AC only by 1/2 level, magical enhancement bonuses, and the scaling for light armor. This means, over the course of his career, that his AC will scale by three fewer points than someone in heavy armor or someone in light armor who invests in dexterity or intelligence on a regular basis.

To put it another way, imagine if your shaman started with an armor class of 10, and then scaled the same as everyone else.

I guess whether a base AC of 10 is "unplayable" is subjective, particularly with a non front line fighter. But its worth remembering that what we're talking about is a very, very low AC.

And of course by epic tier you will have received +2 to your strength, and you undoubtedly have a very high constitution. Which means that you only need to start with an 11 strength in order to qualify for chainmail armor. Chainmail armor at that level will grant you a functional +6 to ac. Three points to make up the initial disparity from 13 to 16, and three points of lost scaling bonuses from materials.

Did I miss something?

The objections are:

1. Its unthematic for the bear shaman to be the only primal subclass in metal armor.

2. The fact that this is so incredibly good makes it essentially mandatory, which is kind of like saying that bear shamans start with chainmail armor and -1 feat. Many people find this lame.

3. WOTC explicitly advises bear shamans to invest in intelligence to improve their AC, even though this won't grant you meaningful class abilities since you're a bear shaman, trades off with your constitution which DOES provide class bonuses, and ultimately costs far more for far fewer benefits than what you'd gain by taking chainmail armor as a feat.

4. The fact that WOTC did this means that lots of people will play bear shamans and be frustrated at high levels when their AC drops through the floor down to a functional base ac of 10 or 11. They will think that the fault lies with the class, when really they just didn't know the secret key to playing a bear shaman. They won't know this because WOTC didn't tell them. You can tell people will do this because you can hear them in the forum insisting that a bear shaman doesn't need armor class (apparently at all) because he's not on the front line.

Part of what's missing from this conversation is a sense of just how incredibly low a high level bear shaman's AC becomes. Against equal level monsters, a bear shaman in the epic tier would be expected to be hit by attack rolls of between 1 and 5 depending on the monster. Take the attack roll you expect a rogue to be hit on, and subtract six. Or just crunch the numbers yourself, and compare to existing monsters.

 

[Black Knight Irios]

1. Its unthematic for the bear shaman to be the only primal subclass in metal armor.

This is fluff - just change the material.

2. The fact that this is so incredibly good makes it essentially mandatory, which is kind of like saying that bear shamans start with chainmail armor and -1 feat. Many people find this lame.

No, because you can take it as your lvl2, or lvl4, or lvlx feat if you want.
Probably, it is better to take it at lvl1.
If you happen to play a human you can take armor prof (chain) and one other feat at lvl1.

3. WOTC explicitly advises bear shamans to invest in intelligence to improve their AC, even though this won't grant you meaningful class abilities since you're a bear shaman, trades off with your constitution which DOES provide class bonuses, and ultimately costs far more for far fewer benefits than what you'd gain by taking chainmail armor as a feat.

4. The fact that WOTC did this means that lots of people will play bear shamans and be frustrated at high levels when their AC drops through the floor down to a functional base ac of 10 or 11. They will think that the fault lies with the class, when really they just didn't know the secret key to playing a bear shaman. They won't know this because WOTC didn't tell them. You can tell people will do this because you can hear them in the forum insisting that a bear shaman doesn't need armor class (apparently at all) because he's not on the front line.

Like I care about WotC's ideas on how to play a class. If they knew how to play their classes there would be less broken (like OP) stuff.

And for the very same reason people should follow the advice in the link in my sig.

Part of what's missing from this conversation is a sense of just how incredibly low a high level bear shaman's AC becomes. Against equal level monsters, a bear shaman in the epic tier would be expected to be hit by attack rolls of between 1 and 5 depending on the monster. Take the attack roll you expect a rogue to be hit on, and subtract six. Or just crunch the numbers yourself, and compare to existing monsters.

Why would anyone care about how low it can get compared to other ACs if STR 13 and a single feat makes the discussion moot.
How hard would be a fight at lvl30 if my fighter had STR 10 - no one cares because no one puts an 8 in STR as a fighter.

But you seem dead set on knowing how terrible the AC could be - here you are:
10 base
+ 15 1/2lvl
+4 armor (starleather)
+6 enhancement
= AC 35
The average attack roll bonus of a level 30 monster against AC is +35.
And if you invested in STR 13 and a single feat your AC would be 43.

So get yourself STR 13 and armor prof (chain) - ASAP - and never look back.