The AC/Reflex Conundrum

[Stalker0]

So I was creating an elven rogue for another playtest game.

He had an 18 dex, bumped up to 20 with elven bonus. With leather armor (+2), that's an AC of 17.

Weird thing is, the rogue gains a +2 to reflex defense, which combined with this dex grants a reflex AC of 17 as well!!

This seems a little strange to me, it means that my dodging is such that my armor seems to be useless (effectively). So this gives some credence to the idea that AC = reflex defense + armor.

However, that would mean the rogue class (a striker, designed for offense not defense) gains an innate +2 to AC!! Looking at my pregen, he would then have an AC of 19, one of the highest of the pregens. He would have +5 to damage with his powers due to his dex, the best initiative, and by far the best attack bonus with a dagger (+9).

Now he's only doing 1d4+5, considering he's hitting with this powers 15% more often than the fighter, that doesn't look too bad.

So the unsolved mystery remains a frustrating one, one is AC truly determined?

 

[Simon Marks]

The armour page explicitly states you can add your dex or int modifier to your AC - not add your Reflex save.

So, the +2 reflex shouldn't effect the AC at all.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/benimoto/2307597095/sizes/o/

"When you are wearing light armour you add your intelligence or dexterity modifier to your AC, whichever is higher"

 

[Stalker0]

The armour page explicitly states you can add your dex or int modifier to your AC - not add your Reflex save.

So, the +2 reflex shouldn't effect the AC at all.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/benimoto/2307597095/sizes/o/

"When you are wearing light armour you add your intelligence or dexterity modifier to your AC, whichever is higher"

However, this presents a scenario where a person's reflex defense (which in many cases is your touch attack) can get higher than your AC. Basically I'm easier to hit with a sword and hurt me than I am to touch with a sword.

There may be a clause that your AC can never be lower than your reflex defense. In that case, many times a rogue doesn't need to wear any armor, it doesn't help him any.

 

[Cyronax]

However, this presents a scenario where a person's reflex defense (which in many cases is your touch attack) can get higher than your AC. Basically I'm easier to hit with a sword and hurt me than I am to touch with a sword.

There may be a clause that your AC can never be lower than your reflex defense. In that case, many times a rogue doesn't need to wear any armor, it doesn't help him any.

I so hope you're proved wrong. That sounds like a truly silly development if not.

c.i.d

 

[breschau]

You also overlooked that the math on the pregen characters does not support this view. AC is clearly not based on Reflex defense.

 

[Gargazon]

However, this presents a scenario where a person's reflex defense (which in many cases is your touch attack) can get higher than your AC. Basically I'm easier to hit with a sword and hurt me than I am to touch with a sword.

There may be a clause that your AC can never be lower than your reflex defense. In that case, many times a rogue doesn't need to wear any armor, it doesn't help him any.

Actually, I could easily see it being easier to dodge someone trying to grab you with a hand than dodge a swing of the sword. This probably also makes up for 4E possibly not having evasion.

 

[Storminator]

Didn't this used to happen in 3e? Ranger/Rogue in chain shirt... AC ~21, Reflex save +12? Never seen that?

PS

 

[Stalker0]

Didn't this used to happen in 3e? Ranger/Rogue in chain shirt... AC ~21, Reflex save +12? Never seen that?

PS

The difference is that in 3.5, your touch AC and reflex save are independent. In 4e, your touch AC and reflex defense are one in the same.

 

[Puggins]

the reflex > AC situation is going to be anamalous- we've yet to see a situation where it actually happens in either a monster or character, though I suppose that if there's a +1AC armor a rogue will exhibit the issue. Considering the number of bizarre anamolies that have come down the pipe before, one that exists in very rare, specific cases is perfectly acceptable if it streamlines the system.

incidentally, there were situations in 3.5e that mirrored this. The unarmored Wilder had to put in the "touch AC can never exceed normal AC" stipulation to avoid it.

 

[Stalker0]

The unarmored Wilder had to put in the "touch AC can never exceed normal AC" stipulation to avoid it.

Exactly, the reason the wilder ability capped at the wilder's AC was to prevent the oddness that the wilder could be harder to touch than hit.

That's why I'm wondering if there will be a similar clause in 4e. Such as "your AC can never be lower than your reflex defense."

Further, this isn't an isolated case. A rogue will have more reflex defense than AC assuming he isn't wearing armor, and barring magic items that add to one but not the other.