Fixing AC costs

[RedWarlock]

Oi, BB raises a good point: Altering stats on a blanket-scale causes twofold imbalances in the CR system (the player's RNG gets affected, and the encounters get modified). Wide-scale alterations to AC based on a stat everyone has means enemies benefit from it more than the players do, and this causes problems for the Noncasters (who typically target AC exclusively).

I'm not saying his points aren't valid, I'm saying he's not doing anything to help the conversation other than to state the given option is invalid. Sure, there would be other ripple-effect changes to be made, but the CR system has long been borked.

The other point I'd make is that (and this is a more recent detail I've noticed, so I'm not sure how widespread it is) a lot of BB's criticisms are exterior-level complaints based on a given feat/spell/etc, in opposition to internal core-level changes. Exterior-level stuff like that is entirely based on the core, so a given change to the core means those extended effects may be either invalidated, or broken, one way or another, meaning they need to be changed or removed. (Just because wraithstrike exists, means we can't change how the core formula of how AC is calculated? One small spell option invalidates a whole host of possibly beneficial changes? No, that's ridiculous! In that case, throw wraithstrike out, not the AC change.)

CR is an exterior-level evaluation as well, because it sums up all the various bonuses and penalties of a given creature/challenge. In this kind of core-system rebalancing, throw existing CRs out the window, and start over.

[Basket Burner]

I'm not saying his points aren't valid, I'm saying he's not doing anything to help the conversation other than to state the given option is invalid. Sure, there would be other ripple-effect changes to be made, but the CR system has long been borked.

...

"No. Even if you half costs you'll still hit the cap early.

You'd have to half costs, raise the caps by 50%, raise WBL by 50%, and make the maximum iterative penalty -5 in order to make AC useful. Even then, it might not work.

No need to mess with saves, special defense is fine."

"Exactly. The reason for the max -5 is so that the range of numbers can be balanced better and so that BAB means more.

"Completely intentional, as non casters don't have enough wealth to cover their bases and casters already get extra by abusing craft discounts."

I stopped halfway through. You're right, I'm completely not helping here.

The other point I'd make is that (and this is a more recent detail I've noticed, so I'm not sure how widespread it is) a lot of BB's criticisms are exterior-level complaints based on a given feat/spell/etc, in opposition to internal core-level changes. Exterior-level stuff like that is entirely based on the core, so a given change to the core means those extended effects may be either invalidated, or broken, one way or another, meaning they need to be changed or removed. (Just because wraithstrike exists, means we can't change how the core formula of how AC is calculated? One small spell option invalidates a whole host of possibly beneficial changes? No, that's ridiculous! In that case, throw wraithstrike out, not the AC change.)

You are completely missing the point. The point is that enemies going from "you hit" to "you miss" means that they will instantly change what they are doing. If they are using physical attacks, they will be bypassing that AC (with Wraithstrike) or will be getting run by a DM that doesn't know better (who will now see that it can't hit anything and make it spam spells instead). End result is you proxy buff all enemies. The Wraithstrike itself is immaterial. What matters is that the enemies will now seek to counter your counters. Even if you remove that spell, you still have a bunch of spellcasting enemies that will never consider doing anything else now, so all you've done is make enemies fight better. Or if you're using this to replace all the different bonus types, then you still have too low an AC to make any difference, everyone still gets auto hit, and you've wasted everyone's time with a meaningless change.

CR is an exterior-level evaluation as well, because it sums up all the various bonuses and penalties of a given creature/challenge. In this kind of core-system rebalancing, throw existing CRs out the window, and start over.

If you have to warp entire systems to make a one line idea work, it's a terrible idea. Not to mention most people's ideas of CR are even more off base than WotC's. As an experiment, I tested some people to name that CR after providing an attack sequence. A very large number of people were off target, often by 50%-75%. Why anyone would think a +24 to hit is level 14 worthy I don't know, but many did.

Fixing broken systems only works if the people fixing it are more capable than those that originally made it.

[RedWarlock]

"No. Even if you half costs you'll still hit the cap early.

You'd have to half costs, raise the caps by 50%, raise WBL by 50%, and make the maximum iterative penalty -5 in order to make AC useful. Even then, it might not work.

No need to mess with saves, special defense is fine."

"Exactly. The reason for the max -5 is so that the range of numbers can be balanced better and so that BAB means more.

"Completely intentional, as non casters don't have enough wealth to cover their bases and casters already get extra by abusing craft discounts."

I stopped halfway through. You're right, I'm completely not helping here.

You stop there. I went through the rest, that was pretty much it, and aside from putting forth that idea in the first quote (which I will give your credit for), it's your idea or nothing. Nobody else gets a 'maybe not that, but if you..'

You are completely missing the point. The point is that enemies going from "you hit" to "you miss" means that they will instantly change what they are doing. If they are using physical attacks, they will be bypassing that AC (with Wraithstrike) or will be getting run by a DM that doesn't know better (who will now see that it can't hit anything and make it spam spells instead). End result is you proxy buff all enemies. The Wraithstrike itself is immaterial. What matters is that the enemies will now seek to counter your counters. Even if you remove that spell, you still have a bunch of spellcasting enemies that will never consider doing anything else now, so all you've done is make enemies fight better. Or if you're using this to replace all the different bonus types, then you still have too low an AC to make any difference, everyone still gets auto hit, and you've wasted everyone's time with a meaningless change.

CR is an exterior-level evaluation as well, because it sums up all the various bonuses and penalties of a given creature/challenge. In this kind of core-system rebalancing, throw existing CRs out the window, and start over.

If you have to warp entire systems to make a one line idea work, it's a terrible idea. Not to mention most people's ideas of CR are even more off base than WotC's. As an experiment, I tested some people to name that CR after providing an attack sequence. A very large number of people were off target, often by 50%-75%. Why anyone would think a +24 to hit is level 14 worthy I don't know, but many did.

Fixing broken systems only works if the people fixing it are more capable than those that originally made it.

That would be a difference of opinion. I honestly don't see much worth salvaging from high-end monsters, because they're built on poorly-constructed standards that aren't properly representative of comparable player capabilities. Maybe it's a situation of a lot more work, but I would see the time spent in rebuilding the high-end monsters and their CRs to be a worthy endeavor. As it is now, I see that disparity in high-level challenges as enough to make high-level monsters unworkable, and I wouldn't bother playing into those circumstances.

[Basket Burner]

You stop there. I went through the rest, that was pretty much it, and aside from putting forth that idea in the first quote (which I will give your credit for), it's your idea or nothing. Nobody else gets a 'maybe not that, but if you..'

I presented an idea that works. Others presented an idea that does not work. I pointed out their ideas do not work. Since I've already provided an idea that does work...

What's more, most of the others completely missed the core and fundamental problems.

That would be a difference of opinion. I honestly don't see much worth salvaging from high-end monsters, because they're built on poorly-constructed standards that aren't properly representative of comparable player capabilities. Maybe it's a situation of a lot more work, but I would see the time spent in rebuilding the high-end monsters and their CRs to be a worthy endeavor. As it is now, I see that disparity in high-level challenges as enough to make high-level monsters unworkable, and I wouldn't bother playing into those circumstances.

High end monsters are built around spells. Spells are actually rather balanced with themselves. Just other things can't keep up. Regardless, the solution is not poorly thought out sweeping changes regarding physical defense mechanics.

Now let's see how my method measures up. Here it is again.

"You'd have to half costs, raise the caps by 50%, raise WBL by 50%, and make the maximum iterative penalty -5 in order to make AC useful. Even then, it might not work."

Half costs = armor and shield bonuses are 500 * bonus squared, natural armor and deflection are 1,000 * bonus squared.
Raise caps by 50% = those bonus types go up to +8 non epic. The spells that grant the same have their formulas adjusted accordingly.
Raise WBL by 50% = speaks for itself, done so non casters can cover their bases, and keep up with casters.
Max iterative penalty -5 = makes sure numbers are on the same range and easier to balance, also makes BAB and manufactured weapons worth more.

At low levels, low wealth * 1.5 still isn't that much. At most your AC would increase by a point or two. AC also isn't far behind the to hit curve.

At mid and high levels it makes far more of a difference, both in terms of how much money you get and in terms of how much AC you can get with that money.

The cap is 12 points higher all together. That's enough that AC can make a difference without being a binary shift in the other direction. It still falls a bit short, as you need 65-70 to have a good AC but will only have 61 or so but it comes a lot closer than RAW does. And at levels before 20, there's less of a difference, and by extension more levels where AC is actually worth something.

[Prime32]

For the disparities between monsters and PCs with level-based AC bonuses, my solution is this: If monsters and PCs are supposed to follow the same rules, then a CR6 creature will be treated as lv6 in every respect.

Virtual Levels
A PC's virtual stats are the same as his normal ones, minus the effects of buffs. A monster's virtual level is equal to its CR. To calculate a monster's virtual BAB, treat it as if it had a number of racial HD equal to its CR; for instance a CR 9 Dragon would have +9 BAB, as if it had 9 Dragon HD. A monster with HD equal to double its CR or more increases its virtual BAB by one step (eg. a CR4 Fey with 8HD would have +3 BAB - average rather than poor), while HD triple its CR increases its BAB by two steps. For monsters with class levels, halve the virtual stats gained for nonassociated levels.

Also cap iterative penalties at -5, for the reasons mentioned.

[Mooncrow]

The Wheel of Time d20 game had an AC bonus by class that went up as you leveled - it wasn't a very good implementation, but it was a decent start of an idea. 

Personally, if you don't like the "NPC's and PC's follow different rules" thing (which I don't) it would be more elegant to implement it as a humanoid-only, or a manufactured armor-only thing.  Considering the already existing disparity between natural weapons and regular weapons, it seems reasonable enough to fit in with the existing rules, without breaking verisimilitude. 

BB's method has some merit, though I think there might be a lot of unintended consequences of simply raising the WBL cap - classes that don't depend on paying for AC just get a straight boost in power for instance.  I would think that it would be more on point to reduce armor costs more (possibly as I mentioned earlier in the thread, just doing away with, or at least reducing the scaling cost curve) if that's what's needed.  Then, after calculating where that leaves us, adding in new armor bonus types to purchase/enchant. 

The current list of armor boost types is quite large, but almost all of them are restricted to caster-only as a source, and that seems like poor design. 

[Eldritch_Lord]

Personally, if you don't like the "NPC's and PC's follow different rules" thing (which I don't) it would be more elegant to implement it as a humanoid-only, or a manufactured armor-only thing.  Considering the already existing disparity between natural weapons and regular weapons, it seems reasonable enough to fit in with the existing rules, without breaking verisimilitude.

How about you link it to armor proficiency?  That is, all creatures proficient with light armor, regardless of type, BAB, or class, get a +X bonus to AC (where X is some scaling value, obviously), and the same for medium and heavy proficiencies.  Most monster types are proficient with either no armor or proficient with "armor they're described as wearing," so any monsters that rely on actual armor instead of arbitrary natural armor bonuses would benefit just fine, and the benefit of tying it to proficiencies instead of class levels or manufactured armor is that (A) a DM who wants to beef up some monsters' AC can swap out some useless feats for proficiency feats, rather than trying to justify why an animal or construct would have full plate or levels in Fighter and (B) skirmisher-type 3/4 BAB PCs who might otherwise have less AC if the bonus is tied to class or BAB can spend a feat or two to improve the bonus if they want to.

EDIT: It occurs to me that this provides an unintentional buff to the cleric, which didn't occur to me a minute ago since I only see cloistered clerics in my games.  If this suggestion were to be implemented, dropping medium and heavy proficiency for the cleric might be a good idea anyway, as they really don't need the proficiencies in the first place given their buffs and given our desire for casters to not overshadow martials in the AC department.  One might also want to grant monks light armor proficiency just because and/or to integrate their own scaling AC into this system, but I frankly don't care about how the monk fares AC-wise.

[awaken_D_M_golem]

4e went ahead and made everything track a +1 per level thingy.
AC had some historical stuff, so they made it "look" different,
but otherwise the underlying mechanics were the same.

[Basket Burner]

Personally, if you don't like the "NPC's and PC's follow different rules" thing (which I don't) it would be more elegant to implement it as a humanoid-only, or a manufactured armor-only thing.  Considering the already existing disparity between natural weapons and regular weapons, it seems reasonable enough to fit in with the existing rules, without breaking verisimilitude.

How about you link it to armor proficiency?  That is, all creatures proficient with light armor, regardless of type, BAB, or class, get a +X bonus to AC (where X is some scaling value, obviously), and the same for medium and heavy proficiencies.  Most monster types are proficient with either no armor or proficient with "armor they're described as wearing," so any monsters that rely on actual armor instead of arbitrary natural armor bonuses would benefit just fine, and the benefit of tying it to proficiencies instead of class levels or manufactured armor is that (A) a DM who wants to beef up some monsters' AC can swap out some useless feats for proficiency feats, rather than trying to justify why an animal or construct would have full plate or levels in Fighter and (B) skirmisher-type 3/4 BAB PCs who might otherwise have less AC if the bonus is tied to class or BAB can spend a feat or two to improve the bonus if they want to.

EDIT: It occurs to me that this provides an unintentional buff to the cleric, which didn't occur to me a minute ago since I only see cloistered clerics in my games.  If this suggestion were to be implemented, dropping medium and heavy proficiency for the cleric might be a good idea anyway, as they really don't need the proficiencies in the first place given their buffs and given our desire for casters to not overshadow martials in the AC department.  One might also want to grant monks light armor proficiency just because and/or to integrate their own scaling AC into this system, but I frankly don't care about how the monk fares AC-wise.

Any monster with a one level dip or the right type breaks.

[Mooncrow]

Personally, if you don't like the "NPC's and PC's follow different rules" thing (which I don't) it would be more elegant to implement it as a humanoid-only, or a manufactured armor-only thing.  Considering the already existing disparity between natural weapons and regular weapons, it seems reasonable enough to fit in with the existing rules, without breaking verisimilitude.

How about you link it to armor proficiency?  That is, all creatures proficient with light armor, regardless of type, BAB, or class, get a +X bonus to AC (where X is some scaling value, obviously), and the same for medium and heavy proficiencies.  Most monster types are proficient with either no armor or proficient with "armor they're described as wearing," so any monsters that rely on actual armor instead of arbitrary natural armor bonuses would benefit just fine, and the benefit of tying it to proficiencies instead of class levels or manufactured armor is that (A) a DM who wants to beef up some monsters' AC can swap out some useless feats for proficiency feats, rather than trying to justify why an animal or construct would have full plate or levels in Fighter and (B) skirmisher-type 3/4 BAB PCs who might otherwise have less AC if the bonus is tied to class or BAB can spend a feat or two to improve the bonus if they want to.

EDIT: It occurs to me that this provides an unintentional buff to the cleric, which didn't occur to me a minute ago since I only see cloistered clerics in my games.  If this suggestion were to be implemented, dropping medium and heavy proficiency for the cleric might be a good idea anyway, as they really don't need the proficiencies in the first place given their buffs and given our desire for casters to not overshadow martials in the AC department.  One might also want to grant monks light armor proficiency just because and/or to integrate their own scaling AC into this system, but I frankly don't care about how the monk fares AC-wise.

Any monster with a one level dip or the right type breaks.

Agreed, I think it would be a much better implementation to tie it in a scaling manner to class levels and not just "proficiencies give you more". 

[RedWarlock]

The numbers aren't the same, but this sounds pretty much like the level-based AC bonus from UA, in concept. Grants bonus to AC (and touch) based on class levels with proficiencies.

[veekie]

^^
Proficiencies not working out was kind of why I said BAB, derived from Class alone as the basis for the formula. If anything it'd be the inverse, a heavy armored character is stereotyped to be less evasive, while light/unarmored to be more(which rams up against unarmored casters).

In the quick hack version, each point of class BAB grants you a corresponding point of dodge AC, replacing the item AC types besides Armor and Shield. This evens out the AC gain at low to mid level, particularly making an unoptimized fully kitted character fairly hard to hit without secondary bonuses(since your base AC would be 10+BAB+9(full plate)+2(shield) vs a to hit of 1d20+BAB +5(str at presumably 20 for a low level character) +1(Mw) which gives a required 15 to hit by another humanoid). Miscellaneous bonuses can be expected to raise these values by up to 5 for anyone who's trying at all. Enchanted armor and weapons are expected to mostly cancel each other out, though enchanted shields would tip the balance somewhat.
At higher levels, it diverges, depending on how adept you are at finding alternative AC bonus types. At low optimisation skill you have 2 types(Natural, Deflection), but this goes to more at high skill, granting you 3 more types(Sacred/Profane, insight, luck). Up until the 4th type the BAB method grants a higher AC(since they increase roughly every 4 levels), but at the 5th BAB falls behind.
Casters retain the ability to generate those AC types via buff spells, with the cleric(heavy armor, 3/4 BAB and any one buff spell makes up the missing 1/4 BAB) and druid(wild shape, taking advantage of monstrous natural armor(unless using PF wild shape) and 3/4 class BAB bonus and if they feel like it, another buff) in the most advantageous positions. Arcane casters still have to rely on the same tactics, their ACs are going to be terrible so they'd need the miss chances.
This leaves the lighter armored classes(especially the rogue/scout), who still have to deal with a relatively lower BAB without compensatory buffs or heavier armor. They would require class specific measures, as any further broad sweeps would likely pass them by.

In order to account for armor now, you could use a two axis table(this is slightly past the quick hack level now), with BAB and armor worn determining gains from each class level. You don't get any bonus if wearing armor you aren't proficient with. Maybe something like this(fractions are per class level):

	None	Light	Medium	Heavy
Full BAB	+1/2	+1/3	+1/4	+0
3/4 BAB	+1/3	+1/4	+1/5	+0
1/2 BAB	+1/4	+1/5	+1/6	+0

So if you were a Fighter 6, you'd have a +3 AC bonus while unarmored, +2 in light, and +1 in medium.

Monster ACs are already adjusted for their CRs by their natural AC modifiers for the most part. NPC ACs go up, but they were pretty abysmal before due to reduced gear(and you can't increase it without turning them into extreme loot pinatas).

Just a thought.

EDIT: That took longer than I thought, maybe I should clean it up and post a thread in Houserules for that.

[Mooncrow]

Just a nitpick, put there are actually 11 types of armor bonus + the 3 enhancement types + untyped (Armor, Shield, Natural, Insight, Deflection, Sacred/Profane, Morale, Circumstance, Dodge, Divine, and Luck) - some are obviously rarer than others^^

I'm not really fond of the scaling by armor type; all it really seems to do is make heavy armor even worse than it already is - and from a real world perspective, there is a difference in someone who knows how to wear heavy armor, and someone who's an expert.  It's harder for the untrained eye to see, but in heavy armor, learning how to take a blow at an angle so it slides off, or stepping into a swing before it reaches full momentum - that type of thing makes a huge difference. 

[veekie]

Yes, but heavy armor does give a sizable AC bonus(its only matched by the unarmored full BAB guy at level 20) over the other AC types. Its more compensatory than overruling.

[SneeR]

Sorry, Veekie, but I think that you have it backwards. I've been thinking about it, and I believe that more armor can be used more efficiently.

Humanoids who wear armor get varying dodge bonuses as they become more skilled in combat.

All humanoids have a dodge bonus of 1/4 their level.

In addition, wearing certain amounts of armor gives different bonuses based on their BAB.

Light armor: 3/4 your BAB as dodge bonus
Medium Armor: your BAB as a dodge bonus; fighting defensively adds another 1/4 BAB; full defense adds another 1/2 BAB as dodge bonus
Heavy Armor: your BAB as a dodge bonus, fighting defensively adds another 1/2 BAB; full defense adds your BAB as dodge bonus

See, now the concept of heavy-armored tank is more conceivable. Think of the dodge bonus as less twisting out of the way and more learning to shift your body so that your opponent hits only the parts of your armor that you want them to hit.

A humanoid monk's AC Bonus counts as Medium armor for this effect only.

EDIT:
Using a light gives you the benefit of light armor, using a heavy shield gives you the bonus of medium armor, and using a tower shield gives you the bonus of heavy armor. Of course, this is optional, but I like showing some love to shields.

[snakeman830]

I think the right idea is to tie it to class levels and not creature type.  Otherwise, you have races like Killoreans being boned by the system (even more) because they're Fey and not Humanoid.

[JaronK]

Here's the thing with AC scaling: right now, mundane options for raising AC are quite cheap (Mechanicus Gear gives +10 AC for 1750gp).  Magical options for raising AC get really expensive REALLY fast (+1 AC via a +1 enhancement costs 1kgp, but an extra +1 costs you 3kgp more, and it rapidly goes up from there). 

The result is that you can keep up just fine AC wise right up until all your armor has +1 enchantments.  As soon as it costs more than about 1kgp per AC point, it just gets too expensive... but the monsters keep getting bonuses to hit that steadily increase.  So sure, armor is very effective when you have +1 Mithral Mechanicus Gear and such, but it's just not worth it to keep buying up past that point.

Now, there are lots of possible solutions.  I actually really like just giving VoP style bonuses to everyone (numerical bonuses only) in addition to reduced WBL.  When I set the correct values for these bonuses, all the standard numerical stuff just happens free.  Then players purchase the utility items that are fun instead of running on a treadmill trying to play catch up with the base numbers.  These bonuses are based on your class levels (so they only apply to monsters that have class levels, which suddenly makes PC classed enemy humanoids a more valid threat despite their low WBL).

A similar option would be giving free ac bonuses based on the type of armor your class provides (for example, every level you take in a heavy armor class gives +1 AC when wearing heavy armor, while every other level you take in a medium armor class gives +1 AC when wearing medium or heavier armor, and so on).  You have to set the values correctly, which can be hard.  And again, it has to be based on class levels to avoid having to alter every monster.

And another option is just having mundane priced AC bonuses become available as you level up.  Dragon Mag actually has something like this... a feat that lets you add mundane crafting options to your weapons and armor, and you can access a number of options based on your craft ranks.  One of the options is actually just +1 AC, which helps a lot when you're talking about someone with Dastanas, a Chain Shirt, a Chahar-aina, and a shield.  Continuing this concept could really help, and if you give the ability to do this to classes like Fighters, it gives them something to do during downtime (Wizard makes nifty magic items, Fighter makes everyone's armor more effective).

JaronK

[Lycanthromancer]

I rather like the "armor enhancements are half-price" deal, but the funny thing is, in a campaign where we actually did that, I took a +1 armor and added the heck out of the armor abilities instead, and relied on multiple stackable miss chances and hiding to protect myself. Half-priced gleaming armor quality for a 20% miss chance (the equivalent of +4 to AC, but better, because it negates nat 20s and screws over sneak/death attacks), a ring of entropic deflection (replete with some UMD'd anklets of horseshoes of the zephyr), a ring of blinking, and some Mirror Images? Try and hit me now, sucka.

[Basket Burner]

I rather like the "armor enhancements are half-price" deal, but the funny thing is, in a campaign where we actually did that, I took a +1 armor and added the heck out of the armor abilities instead, and relied on multiple stackable miss chances and hiding to protect myself. Half-priced gleaming armor quality for a 20% miss chance (the equivalent of +4 to AC, but better, because it negates nat 20s and screws over sneak/death attacks), a ring of entropic deflection (replete with some UMD'd anklets of horseshoes of the zephyr), a ring of blinking, and some Mirror Images? Try and hit me now, sucka.

True, there's nothing stopping that from happening but I don't see the problem. There aren't a lot of good armor special properties, and the ones that do exist... You get Animated shields a bit sooner, but shield holding sucks anyways so who cares? You get Heavy Fort a bit sooner, but precision users suck anyways, and the sooner you don't have to worry about random one rounding the better.

You're still better off bouncing Magic Vestments around the party, but that's fine too, as it means that you can better afford other things.

[SneeR]

I think the right idea is to tie it to class levels and not creature type.  Otherwise, you have races like Killoreans being boned by the system (even more) because they're Fey and not Humanoid.

Does anyone play Killoreans? I know that tieflings and Aasimar, maybe some others might get the short end of the stick, but basing it on classes as well as BAB is unfair to monsters because, as BB said, any monster can have one level of a class, then its insane BAB based on level starts paying off in spades that players could never hope to touch.