AC: is it worthless?

[sonofzeal]

As I have been in - and DMed - such groups both IRL and on ze interwebz, I'll posit that a large portion of our different expectations re: AC's effectiveness vs. other defensive/offensive preparations effectiveness is a matter of playstyle and specific experiences.

There's certainly a playstyle component. I don't intend to claim that AC is always going to be worthwhile in all games and for all characters. But I think AC-is-worthwhile is the general case, to which specific exceptions do exist.



Out of curiosity though - in these groups you describe, how reliable are those tactics? Roughly what percentage of encounters are recon'd or Scry'd? Do enemies ever get the jump on PCs, either by avoiding detection, tricking the party, or using similar tactics of their own? Has reliance on divination ever backfired?

[Amphetryon]

There's certainly a playstyle component. I don't intend to claim that AC is always going to be worthwhile in all games and for all characters. But I think AC-is-worthwhile is the general case, to which specific exceptions do exist.



Out of curiosity though - in these groups you describe, how reliable are those tactics? Roughly what percentage of encounters are recon'd or Scry'd? Do enemies ever get the jump on PCs, either by avoiding detection, tricking the party, or using similar tactics of their own? Has reliance on divination ever backfired?

The issue is the percentage in which "AC-is-worthwhile" (as a primary defense) is the norm - which appears to be your contention, vs. the percentage in which "AC-is-worth less" (as a primary defense than other choices) - which is my experience. Calling it "the general case" marginalizes my experience and the experience of those who have argued against your apparent contention that AC should be the primary defense in the majority of cases. That marginalization - painting my experiences as a statistical anomaly not worth considering in the larger picture - is what I've been objecting to all along.

To answer your question, those tactics are reliable when used intelligently and/or with a modicum of luck from the dice, and they're less so when used unintelligently and/or when the Dice Gawds turn Their backs on the players. In other words, they work as well as any other tactic would normally be expected to. If the DM sets out specifically to thwart those tactics, they'll probably fail, but that's the case in every example of tactics in D&D that I can think of.

[sonofzeal]

The issue is the percentage in which "AC-is-worthwhile" (as a primary defense) is the norm - which appears to be your contention, vs. the percentage in which "AC-is-worth less" (as a primary defense than other choices) - which is my experience. Calling it "the general case" marginalizes my experience and the experience of those who have argued against your apparent contention that AC should be the primary defense in the majority of cases. That marginalization - painting my experiences as a statistical anomaly not worth considering in the larger picture - is what I've been objecting to all along.

To answer your question, those tactics are reliable when used intelligently and/or with a modicum of luck from the dice, and they're less so when used unintelligently and/or when the Dice Gawds turn Their backs on the players. In other words, they work as well as any other tactic would normally be expected to. If the DM sets out specifically to thwart those tactics, they'll probably fail, but that's the case in every example of tactics in D&D that I can think of.

I apologize - it wasn't my intention to marginalize your experiences, athough I see now how some of my word choices were poor. And I admit I've been biased a bit, both by my own play experiences, and by my personal distaste for "active" defences. Dice Gods hate me, so I inherently distrust defences that have to be manually raised, since I can almost guarantee I'll be caught without them on a regular basis. Those who are more consistently lucky than I might have better experiences with them.

Can we at least agree that there are cases in both directions? Is that fair?

[FMArthur]

Assume: starting 12 Dex
{table=head] AC total | AC Upgrade | Next Purchase | Upgrade Cost | Running Total
19 | 9 | Fullplate | 0.5k | 0.5k
20 | 1 | +1 Fullplate | 1k | 1.5k
21 | 1 | +1 Ring of Prot | 2k | 3.5k
22 | 1 | +1 Ammy of NA | 2k | 5.5k
27 | 5 | +1 Ani. Tower Shield | 9k | 14.5k
28 | 1 | +2 Fullplate | 3k | 17.5k
29 | 1 | Dusty Rose Ioun Stone | 5k | 22.5k
30 | 1 | +3 Fullplate | 5k | 26.5k
31 | 1 | +2 Ring of Prot | 6k | 32.5k
32 | 1 | +2 Ammy of NA | 6k | 38.5k
33 | 1 | Mithral, +2 Gloves of Dex | 7k | 45.5k
34 | 1 | +4 Fullplate | 7k | 52.5k
35 | 1 | +2 Shield| 7k | 59.5k
36 | 1 | +1 Def. Armor Spike | 8k | 67.5k
37 | 1 | +1 Def. Shield Spike | 8k | 75.5k
41 | 4 | Skin of the Defender | 32k | 107.5k
42 | 1 | +5 Fullplate | 9k | 116.5k
43 | 1 | +3 Shield | 9k | 125.5k
44 | 1 | +3 Ring of Protection | 10k | 135.5k
45 | 1 | +3 Ammy of NA | 10k | 145.5k
46 | 1 | +2 Shield Spikes | 10k | 155.5k
47 | 1 | +2 Armor Spikes | 10k | 165.5k
48 | 1 | +4 Shield | 11k | 176.5k
49 | 1 | +4 Gloves of Dex | 12k | 188.5k
50 | 1 | +5 Shield | 13k | 190.5k
[/table]

The progression starts meandering after that. You can get another +6 AC off the spikes, and another +4 AC off the Ring and Amulet, leaving you at 60 AC until epic content.

Not taking issue with the point and purpose here (in fact thank you for the useful resource), just a few problems jump out at me reading it again this morning.

• The (psychoactive) Skin of the Defender gives you an enhancement bonus to your natural armor. That's the same as an Amulet of Natural armor except slotless (it's the same price as a +4 Amulet), so your Amulet doesn't provide benefit here. I would keep the Amulet for its smoother progression since, as of MIC, it won't interfere with body slots anyway.
• Forgive me if there's some trick to your armor arrangement I don't know about, but the full plate at the top should cost 1,500gp, and provide 8 AC. It also has to be masterwork (150gp) to enhance it later. Your starting Dex should be separate from this entry, shouldn't it? That's where your 19 AC comes from obviously.
  
  • I also don't know how you can upgrade an existing suit to having been made of mithral, and I don't think that price is right anyway: +3 mithral full plate costs 19,500gp compared to the +3 MW full plate's 10,650. AFAIK you have to sell the old armor at a 50% loss and pay the remaining 14,175gp. It's probably cheaper to improve the Defending spikes/RoP instead of doing this mithralization for +2 AC from Dexterity increases you also have to pay for.
• You can't put shield spikes on a tower shield.

[sonofzeal]

Not taking issue with the point and purpose here (in fact thank you for the useful resource), just a few problems jump out at me reading it again this morning.

• The (psychoactive) Skin of the Defender gives you an enhancement bonus to your natural armor. That's the same as an Amulet of Natural armor except slotless (it's the same price as a +4 Amulet), so your Amulet doesn't provide benefit here. I would keep the Amulet for its smoother progression since, as of MIC, it won't interfere with body slots anyway.
• Forgive me if there's some trick to your armor arrangement I don't know about, but the full plate at the top should cost 1,500gp, and provide 8 AC. It also has to be masterwork (150gp) to enhance it later. Your starting Dex should be separate from this entry, shouldn't it? That's where your 19 AC comes from obviously.
  
  • I also don't know how you can upgrade an existing suit to having been made of mithral, and I don't think that price is right anyway: +3 mithral full plate costs 19,500gp compared to the +3 MW full plate's 10,650. AFAIK you have to sell the old armor at a 50% loss and pay the remaining 14,175gp. It's probably cheaper to improve the Defending spikes/RoP instead of doing this mithralization for +2 AC from Dexterity increases you also have to pay for.
• You can't put shield spikes on a tower shield.

- Armor can be crafted by yourself for a very reasonable DC, costing a third the price and no xp. Same for the Mithral. Adding in the full cost doesn't change things by more than a single point though.

- Skin of the Defender: "This psychoactive skin continually grants the wearer a +4 bonus to natural armor." It's unnamed, not enhancement, and thus stacks with the amulet.

- You're right about the shield spikes though. Hmm. I'll have to recalculate at some point. These tables are annoying to set up.

[FMArthur]

Skin of the Defender's latest incarnation is in the Magic Item Compendium (which in no uncertain terms calls out its updates as being such at the start of the book):

This skin continually grants a +4 enhancement bonus to your natural armor bonus. (A creature without natural armor has an effective natural armor bonus of +0.)

[sonofzeal]

Skin of the Defender's latest incarnation is in the Magic Item Compendium (which in no uncertain terms calls out its updates as being such at the start of the book):

I've been limiting myself to SRD-only material so far. If we're talking about MIC and other sources now, there's a bunch of new options that open up. If you or anyone else wants to update the table with all that information, I'd greatly appreciate it. I doubt I'll get much of a chance to before next week.

[Roguenewb]

Just to add some incremental player death data: I just ran a campaign from 1-14, with 3 player deaths. They were:

1 dead from magic missile damage, however against wizards who were fireballing and smashing the group, the real cause of death is probably failed reflex saves (despite being a scout with evasion!)

1 dead from truestriked Death Attack from an assassin, so if AC had been extreme it might have mattered, but mainly CoD is failed Fort Save.

1 dead from Circle of Death, so again, failed save.

2 dead from fort saves and 1 from reflex saves (and lack of the spell shield, kind of)

So....AC might not have mattered totally? Despite that, my normally train of thought and experience suggests that AC matters. On top of that, many different character archetypes I build frequently are people who pride themselves on fighting well and not getting hit, so there's always that....

[ILM]

Lack of AC representation in death tallies doesn't mean it's not a risk, it may just mean PCs are adequately protected against AC threats. A party with 4 PCs that all have ACs in the 70s would have zero AC-related deaths in a campaign, but that wouldn't exactly mean anything. And since AC is such a basic mechanic of the game, it kind of stands to reason that it would be the first that players cater to. It took me about 8 full levels in my very first campaign to start figuring out that my TWF fighter/rogue might benefit from increased Will saves more than an extra +1 on my armor.

[Roguenewb]

Trust me, they weren't. They just had 7 people, oh which 2 were fairly close to healbots, so HP attacks against a single party member (even of 2+ CRs higher) were easy enough to hold off.

[mykelyk]

For 8k you can get a parrying weapon +1 insight bonus to AC and saving throws.

[LordBlades]

Several problems with that...

1) It requires two party members to be specific classes.

2) It only works one fight a day.

3) It costs two standard actions per party member, more since Pearls of Power are command activated.

4) Both spells are short duration - one is round-per-level and the other is minute-per-level. This means that all those standard actions, from the otherwise most potent characters in the group, generally have to be taken in the middle of combat.

5) Beastland Ferocity has a specific caveat about dying at -10 which might trump the more general effect of Delay Death by a strict reading. The ruling is almost certainly debatable in either direction (the word "normally" is ambiguous here), but it's a DM's call.


So... it's a great combo if your DM approves it and you can get it off, but it's not going to be a mainstay in most groups.

1) it requires a party member to be of a specific class (cleric) and another to be able to cast any arcane spells and/or have UMD.

2)4 pearls of power and 2 eternal wands make sure it works on 4 fights a day.

3)It actually only costs 1 standard action from the wand user, and 1 spell slot from the cleric to prepare Delay Death since it's an immediate action spell. Pearls of Power are there to recover Delay Death after the fight (and come to think of it you only need 3 to last 4 fights).

4) It's only one action from one arcanist assuming no pre-buff time before the fight, and if we're talking optimization, the most optimized course of action when having a cleric (and wizard) in party would be to kindly ask the fighter to stand back and let the big boys handle it. Anything that's even remotely challenging for an optimized CoDzilla will most likely make the fighter go splat in 1-2 rounds.

5) Like most tactics it's subject to DM approval, but from my own personal experience, I know more DMs that would disallow or severely nerf Defending Weapons than DMs who would disallow this trick.

[Ceaon]

Anything else I should add?

What would the chart look like if all monsters (including non-melee threats and dragons) are taken into consideration? And when only dragons are added?

[sonofzeal]

What would the chart look like if all monsters (including non-melee threats and dragons) are taken into consideration? And when only dragons are added?

If you could break down the AB of dragons by CR, I'll generate the chart with that information.

5) Like most tactics it's subject to DM approval, but from my own personal experience, I know more DMs that would disallow or severely nerf Defending Weapons than DMs who would disallow this trick.

...really? Defending Weapons are doing exactly what RAW and RAI imply. I don't see any ambiguity there, whereas Beastland Ferocity's specific note about dying at -10 might indeed override Delay Death's general rule by RAW. And I just can't imagine many DMs who'd think +2 AC at mid-teen levels is more abusive than being immune to hp damage.

[ILM]

{table]CR|Name|AB
15|Brass Dragon, Mature adult|29
15|Bronze Dragon, Adult|28
15|Marut|22
15|Mummy Lord, 10th-Level Cleric|20
15|Neothelid|24
15|Red Dragon, Adult|32
15|Silver Dragon, Adult|29
15|White Dragon, Old|32
16|Angel, Planetar|23
16|Black Dragon, Old|33
16|Blue Dragon, Mature adult|32
16|Copper Dragon, Mature adult|30
16|Gold Dragon, Adult|33
16|Greater Stone Golem|42
16|Green Dragon, Mature adult|31
16|Horned Devil|25
16|Hound Archon Hero, 11th-Level Paladin|25
16|Nightwalker|24
16|Prismatic Dragon, Very young|38
17|Aboleth Mage, 10th-Level Wizard|18
17|Brass Dragon, Old|33
17|Bronze Dragon, Mature adult|32
17|Formian Queen|-
17|Frost Giant Jarl, 8th-Level Blackguard|30
17|Marilith|25
17|White Dragon, Very old|36
18|Behemoth Eagle|25
18|Black Dragon, Very old|37
18|Blue Dragon, Old|36
18|Green Dragon, Old|35
18|Nightcrawler|29
18|Red Dragon, Mature adult|35
18|Silver Dragon, Mature adult|33
18|White Dragon, Ancient|40
19|Behemoth Gorilla|29
19|Black Dragon, Ancient|41
19|Blue Dragon, Very old|40
19|Brass Dragon, Very old|37
19|Bronze Dragon, Old|36
19|Copper Dragon, Old|34
19|Force Dragon, Very young|36
19|Gold Dragon, Mature adult|37
19|Green Dragon, Very old|39
19|White Dragon, Wyrm|42
20|Balor|33
20|Black Dragon, Wyrm|43
20|Brass Dragon, Ancient|41
20|Bronze Dragon, Very old|40
20|Copper Dragon, Very old|38
20|Pit Fiend|30
20|Red Dragon, Old|37
20|Silver Dragon, Old|37
20|Tarrasque|57[/table]

[LordBlades]

...really? Defending Weapons are doing exactly what RAW and RAI imply. I don't see any ambiguity there, whereas Beastland Ferocity's specific note about dying at -10 might indeed override Delay Death's general rule by RAW. And I just can't imagine many DMs who'd think +2 AC at mid-teen levels is more abusive than being immune to hp damage.

+2 AC maybe not, but getting all the weird slot weapons you can find, chaining GWM on them and getting +10-20 AC out if it has bothered some. I've seen Defending weapon brought up with 6-7 DMs. Only me and another one have allowed it as such. All the others have either banned it or imposed severe restrictions, either disallowing stacking of multiple Defending weapons, or houseruling that activating a Defending weapon counts as using the weapon and therefore attacking with any other weapon or activating multiple Defending weapons makes you incur multi-weapon fighting penalties.

I just know a lot of DMs that think what casters can do should have less limits because 'it's magic'

I do agree that for some campaigns immunity to HP damage might be a bit much, but when it isn't, it's a perfectly viable alternative to AC, 100% effective when spells are up and without scaling costs.

[sonofzeal]

+2 AC maybe not, but getting all the weird slot weapons you can find, chaining GWM on them and getting +10-20 AC out if it has bothered some. I've seen Defending weapon brought up with 6-7 DMs. Only me and another one have allowed it as such. All the others have either banned it or imposed severe restrictions, either disallowing stacking of multiple Defending weapons, or houseruling that activating a Defending weapon counts as using the weapon and therefore attacking with any other weapon or activating multiple Defending weapons makes you incur multi-weapon fighting penalties.

I just know a lot of DMs that think what casters can do should have less limits because 'it's magic'

I do agree that for some campaigns immunity to HP damage might be a bit much, but when it isn't, it's a perfectly viable alternative to AC, 100% effective when spells are up and without scaling costs.

"It's magic"... but weapon enchantments aren't? ;)

I get what you're saying, but there's degrees to everything. Specifically, using GMW to get powerful Defending weapons on the cheap triggers my cheese alert, as does a half dozen +1 Defending Braid Blades, let alone both together. But paying for it naturally, and sticking to PHB stuff? I'm not sure I'd want to play with a DM who'd ban that but allow Delay Death + Beastland Ferocity as a default tactic. That stinks an awful lot of "melee can't have nice things".

{snip}

CR 15: 27
CR 16: 29
CR 17: 29
CR 18: 34
CR 19: 37
CR 20: 40



...of course, FMArthur has pointed out a couple mistakes I'd made in pricing out AC by level, a notable one involving an SRD item that was reprinted in MIC to no longer stack with other sources. As such, the AC lines might need to be adjusted, so take them with a grain of salt, but I'm fairly confident in the result - especially if we're talking about non-SRD games where more sources of AC are in play.

As always, I'll be happy to update the graphs any time people get me the appropriate raw numbers, but I'll be a little limited in what actual analysis I can do until the weekend.

[LordBlades]

I get what you're saying, but there's degrees to everything. Specifically, using GMW to get powerful Defending weapons on the cheap triggers my cheese alert, as does a half dozen +1 Defending Braid Blades, let alone both together. But paying for it naturally, and sticking to PHB stuff? I'm not sure I'd want to play with a DM who'd ban that but allow Delay Death + Beastland Ferocity as a default tactic. That stinks an awful lot of "melee can't have nice things".

Quite a few DMs ban things because they consider they'd be OP when taken to the extreme. They either don't trust their group to be mature about it or just aren't willing to put the time into making case-by-case decisions.

I personally am all for allowing everything within reason. If the end result is in line with the power level I want, then I don't care if it uses 90% of the tricks that make Pun-Pun.