# HELP! Avenger issue



## CovertOps (Jun 15, 2009)

I have an Avenger in my 6th level party (I am the DM).  He has focused on having the highest AC possible by having 10 + 3 (Hide armor) + 2 (Enhancement) + 3 (Class feature) + 1 (Feat increasing class feature) + 5 (20 Int or Dex modifier) + 3 (Level) = 27 AC.

This is a problem when I run my game in that his AC is 2 points higher than either of the defenders and substantially higher than anyone else in the party.  If I use monsters of level n (6) it's almost impossible for them to hit him (around 15-17 +), but if I use higher level monsters then I start to push the non-defenders (and other players that are not him at the table) into auto-hit territory (4+?)

ACs in the party last night were 27, 25 (defender), 25 (defender), 19-21 (all the rest).

I know I can meta-game this and throw more guys that hit non-AC defenses in their at will attacks but that seems kinda cheesy if I do it every fight where he'll start whining that I'm doing it on purpose (also there are not that many of those in heroic).  I can use higher level mobs, but as I said above with a 6-8 point AC swing from him to the lowest AC in the party I can either hit him and auto-hit the low end or miss him and be about right for everyone else.  Going forward I know he said he's getting one more feat that will bump his AC another point so then the relative difference will be 28 vs (19 or 20) or 8-9 points.

I'm looking for suggestions about how to address this and keep things interesting for the whole party.  First:  This Avenger class feature seems broken.  At +4 AC on top of DEX/INT modifier and other feats you can take there will be a large disparity between his AC and other defenses all the time on top of the fact that he has managed to get a better AC than a defender.  Is there something I'm missing?  Perhaps his class feature is situational instead of static?  Perhaps I just need to build encounters with a leader and soldiers and figure out how to get him on the boss all the time.  Then I could use a n+(5-7) boss with n+(1-2) soldiers for the rest of the party and keep things closer.  I hate to be stuck with encounter design limitations like that because things will get pretty old doing the same fight over and over even if it's with different monsters.  Perhaps I need to make an NPC Avenger and throw it at him so the 2 of them can slog it out with the mondo AC and he can get a taste of his own medicine.


----------



## Niflheim (Jun 15, 2009)

You could use minions to flank and then aid another to a larger monster. Thats +4 to hit, also since the minion doesn't attack it wont activate the avenger int bonus to damage.


----------



## Ryujin (Jun 15, 2009)

Even with Oath of Emnity, he can't be a very effective Striker. Sure, he isn't going to get hit very often, but then again he isn't going to help the party much with his main attribute being a secondary/tertiary stat. And as you say, his NADs can't be all that great. 

Did he take training with leather prior to taking hide proficiency, or did he jump straight to hide? That's a no-no.

Overall I could see him as being annoying, but not necessarily game killing. When the opposition finds that they can't hit him, they'll switch to squishier targets and ignore him. That means that those 19-21 AC characters are going to drop pretty fast.

Also when you have defenders with ACs that are that much higher than who they're defending, the enemy sees no benefit in attacking the defenders instead.


----------



## chitzk0i (Jun 15, 2009)

CovertOps said:


> I know I can meta-game this and throw more guys that hit non-AC defenses in their at will attacks but that seems kinda cheesy if I do it every fight where he'll start whining that I'm doing it on purpose (also there are not that many of those in heroic).




Yes, add some monsters that hit FRW.  That doesn't mean that _every_ monster in _every_ encounter ought to hit fort, reflex, or will.  Just mix it up. Most artillery monsters hit non-AC defenses with their AOE attacks.  If you're already using those, have them notice their allies missing the avengers and target him.

There are other ways to get past high AC, too.  Damage auras are auto-hit and could help him feel the pain.  Ongoing damage can make a single hit count for more.  The orc Eye of Gruumsh has a nasty vs. Will minor action ability for -4 AC (and an area attack, IIRC).  One of the stock orc encounters has some real potential, I think.  Eye of Gruumsh curses three party members for -4 AC, then the giant wolf riders rush in with combat advantage.

Plus, you could always take a little liberty with the monsters.  Themed monsters can really tie together a group of encounters and one way to do that could be to add an ability to all the monsters.  Maybe there are some hobgoblin cultists with bugbear allies and they all have an encounter power for some kind of psychic fear attack, or maybe fire breath with ongoing fire damage.  

Basically, I'm saying that monster level is not the only tool you have to deal with this.


----------



## Herschel (Jun 15, 2009)

I wouldn't worry too much about it, to be honest. His feats are tied up in defense (Improved Armor of Faith, Leather & Hide) vs. offensive cheese (Focus, Expertise, Melee Training, Fullblade/Executioner's Axe, Righteous Rage Channel Divinity?). He's built for durability, nothing wrong with that.

That said, attacking FORT isn't metagaming, it's a viable attack. It's most likely the Defenders' best non-AC defense so it's simply a choice on your part who to go after in certain encounters. 

It sounds like good party composition building to me. They appear to be covering their weaknesses. If he goes off "alone" while the others make a tighter group, it makes sense to build as he has.

Also, tactics, tactics, tactics. Focus fire, charge in to a flank for a +3, etc. can do wonders. Don't be afraid to challenge them a bit either with higher level baddies. If the defenders are good at their jobs, they can keep the back line fairly clean.


----------



## CovertOps (Jun 15, 2009)

Ryujin said:


> Did he take training with leather prior to taking hide proficiency, or did he jump straight to hide? That's a no-no.




I don't have his character sheet, but he made it with character builder and I was able to duplicate it myself so I know it's legal.  If he had to take Leather, Hide, and +1 AC Class feature feat he still has one feat left to do what he wants at 6th level (I think he's taking two-weapon fighting to get two weapon defense - the other +1 AC I referred to in my post).  I think the least they could have done is make it like the monk class feature (i.e. it doesn't work if you're wearing any armor or a shield), but of course the monk is kinda weak sauce because of that.



Ryujin said:


> Even with Oath of Emnity, he can't be a very effective Striker. Sure, he isn't going to get hit very often, but then again he isn't going to help the party much with his main attribute being a secondary/tertiary stat. And as you say, his NADs can't be all that great.




As for his stats he has a 18/14 IIRC both bumped by racials to 20/16 with the 20 being his secondary and 16 being his primary attack stat.  As long as he can stay away from other mobs he can use his 2 attack rolls class feature to overcome the slightly lower attack bonus.  I'll have to go home and make his character again and look at his other defenses so I know how to put the smack down on him every once in a while.



Ryujin said:


> Overall I could see him as being annoying, but not necessarily game killing. When the opposition finds that they can't hit him, they'll switch to squishier targets and ignore him. That means that those 19-21 AC characters are going to drop pretty fast.
> 
> Also when you have defenders with ACs that are that much higher than who they're defending, the enemy sees no benefit in attacking the defenders instead.




Guess I'm going to have to be more brutal to them.  If I have 3 archers I'll just have them all fire at the same target.  If 2 miss then they move to the next target.  This almost seems like evil DMing, but it may force the party to re-evaluate their group tactics.  If both leaders and one of the other strikers drop to the ground and the other party members need to go bandage them before they die it will certainly make things more interesting.


----------



## Nail (Jun 15, 2009)

CovertOps said:


> I have an Avenger in my 6th level party (I am the DM).  He has focused on having the highest AC possible by having 10 + 3 (Hide armor) + 2 (Enhancement) + 3 (Class feature) + 1 (Feat increasing class feature) + 5 (20 Int or Dex modifier) + 3 (Level) = 27 AC.



Cool!  He's spent 3 feats to get there (Leather Prof, Hide Prof, Imp. Armor of Faith) of the 4 he gets for 6th level.  That's not an insignificant sacrifice.  

He also needed a Str 13 and Con 13 (for Hide Prof. feat), and since the class requires neither of those stats (Avenger needs Wisdom primary, then Dex or Int secondary), his PC spent some significant point-buy to get there.  So his PC base stats (pre-race, 1st) were 17, 14, 13, 13, 11, 8?  That's not a great distribution (and it means he put a 14 on his primary stat: Wisdom, which sucks) so he made sacrifices there too.   What race is his PC?

I'm guessing he started this PC at 6th, and so didn't "feel the burn" of this build.

Bottom Line: this guy sacrificed his attack roll *and* three feats to get to this high AC.  Is that *really* a problem?


----------



## CovertOps (Jun 15, 2009)

Herschel said:


> I wouldn't worry too much about it, to be honest. His feats are tied up in defense (Improved Armor of Faith, Leather & Hide) vs. offensive cheese (Focus, Expertise, Melee Training, Fullblade/Executioner's Axe, Righteous Rage Channel Divinity?). He's built for durability, nothing wrong with that.
> 
> That said, attacking FORT isn't metagaming, it's a viable attack. It's most likely the Defenders' best non-AC defense so it's simply a choice on your part who to go after in certain encounters.
> 
> ...




I think he's using that double weapon Urgosh? +2 d12/d8.  I don't care for Expertise and have house ruled them out replacing them with the bonus to all attacks at 5/15/25.

I only said it would be meta-gaming if I started throwing FRW attacks at the party EVERY encounter.  I already have plans muwhahaha.

I don't give them that much credit that it's "good party composition" and "covering their weaknesses".  This one particular player is a power gamer to the max and the rest of the party is just not as min/maxed as he is.  This more than anything is what irks me about this the most.  The "swing" between min/max and average players should not be this big.  One set of choices should not be that much better than a different set of choices.  I suppose my other option is to bring it up at the table with all the players present and see how everyone feels about it.  If I do as Ryujin suggests I will wind up dropping all the low AC party members first in every fight and that will have a profound impact at the table.  Not as if the rest of the party isn't already annoyed enough with the (Avenger) power gamer.


----------



## Lauberfen (Jun 15, 2009)

His AC is only 2 higher than the defenders, who themselves could be slightly higher (+2 layered plate [11], Large shield [2], Level [3].

That's actually quite a small difference, and he'll be much more fragile once you do hit.

I'd throw in same level soldiers, or maybe +1 (but not higher- high level soldiers are no fun for anyone). They'll have +13 to hit, so will hit him on 14+, which is a fair amount.

Also throw in atacks not against armour- there are lots of these, even at heroir. many artillery monsters go straight for reflex.

Finally, make sure the monsters keep attacking him (those that might hit)- he'll look much softer than the tanks.


----------



## keterys (Jun 15, 2009)

It may be better to think of him as an odd type of defender, cause honestly that's a lot more what he is at that point. Get in the back lines and cause problems while being hard to hit but frankly no more threatening than a fighter.


----------



## CovertOps (Jun 15, 2009)

Nail said:


> Cool!  He's spent 3 feats to get there (Leather Prof, Hide Prof, Imp. Armor of Faith) of the 4 he gets for 6th level.  That's not an insignificant sacrifice.
> 
> He also needed a Str 13 and Con 13 (for Hide Prof. feat), and since the class requires neither of those stats (Avenger needs Wisdom primary, then Dex or Int secondary), his PC spent some significant point-buy to get there.  So his PC base stats (pre-race, 1st) were 16, 15, 13, 13, 10, 8?  That's not a great distribution (and it means he put a 15 on his primary stat: Wisdom, which sucks) so he made sacrifices there too.   What race is his PC?
> 
> ...




I guess the answer is yes, because he has a class feature that more than makes up for his "sacrifice".  I seem to recall reading some other thread where someone had said that the 2 dice rolls you get from the Avenger class feature worked out to about +3.34 to hit statistically?  I know it was something just over +3 so bottom line is he still hits just as often as any other striker if not more since it is assumed that you will have between a 16-20 primary stat and he has +3 above that from rolling twice.  

Now that you mention it I should probably check to see if he didn't start with a 17/13 to get his 20/16 by using his level 4 bumps and then having enough points for the 13/13 Str/Con.  You are correct in that he did not have to "feel the burn" of the build.  IIRC you only need 13 Str OR Con for Hide, not both.  No books/rules handy from work.


----------



## IanB (Jun 15, 2009)

He would actually have to put a base 17 in his dex/int to get all the way to a +5 by 6th level, not a 16.


----------



## Herschel (Jun 15, 2009)

CovertOps said:


> I think he's using that double weapon Urgosh? +2 d12/d8. I don't care for Expertise and have house ruled them out replacing them with the bonus to all attacks at 5/15/25.
> 
> ...This one particular player is a power gamer to the max and the rest of the party is just not as min/maxed as he is. This more than anything is what irks me about this the most. The "swing" between min/max and average players should not be this big.




So you gave them "Expertise" for free basically. Without making them spend a feat, they just got bumped two levels in attack bonus. If you throw standard level encounters at them you helped alleviate the penalty for what annoys you. But his primary attack bonus is still sub-par, especially since his weapon proficiency is only a +2, IIRC. I wouldn't call that Powergaming or Min/Maxing per se, he simply made the choice to build defensively. He's basically built a pseudo/secondary defender out of a striker at the expense of his primary role.

I honestly don't see it as a problem, it just requires you to approach it a little differently.  He'll have a rough time hitting Elites w/ buddies, etc. And focused fire is NOT DM cheese, is good tactics. The party does it (or should be) so so should you. That's not "evil DMing", that's playing the baddies to their ability, experience and intelligence to make the game fun and a challenge.


----------



## Nail (Jun 15, 2009)

Nail said:


> Bottom Line: this guy sacrificed his attack roll *and* three feats to get to this high AC.  Is that *really* a problem?






CovertOps said:


> I guess the answer is yes, because he has a class feature that more than makes up for his "sacrifice".



Nope.

The class feature would be even more deadly if he hadn't taken the hit to his attack roll.  The sacrifice is there.  (Plus he could have taken 3 feats to increase his damage, etc.)

Remember that the Avenger class is built to be a striker.  Unlike Barbarian, Sorcerer, Ranger, Warlock, etc, the Avenger gets its "extra" damage from hitting more often.  By lowering (a bit) his attack roll, he reduces his effectiveness.

Also remember that he gets that juicy double roll only if he's only got one enemy adjacent.  The Avenger has At-Wills that help make that happen, but it's by no means guaranteed.  Just get more enemies adjacent to him, then *don't* attack him....watch how effective he gets then.



CovertOps said:


> IIRC you only need 13 Str OR Con for Hide, not both.



Nope.  You need a 13 Str and a 13 Con.  (PC Builder would have caught that.)  ...and that 13 Str is useless to the PC otherwise.


----------



## Nail (Jun 15, 2009)

IanB said:


> He would actually have to put a base 17 in his dex/int to get all the way to a +5 by 6th level, not a 16.



Blast.  I was thinking he was 8th.  Doh. 

So, if he has a 20 Dex at 6th, then his initial stat buy (pre racial) was:

17, 14, 13, 13, 11, 8 

For: Str 13, Con 13, Dex 17, Int 11, Wis 14, Chr 8  (then add racials and +1 4th lvl)

....which is really abyssmal, IMO.  His attack stat is only 17 at 6th level (assuming a +2 Wis race).  He's effectively -2 to hit compared to most PCs.  And his Will defence is pretty low.

Seriously, have enemies cluster around him, then attack someone else.  If minions mob this guy, he's neutered.


----------



## CovertOps (Jun 15, 2009)

Herschel said:


> So you gave them "Expertise" for free basically. Without making them spend a feat, they just got bumped two levels in attack bonus. If you throw standard level encounters at them you helped alleviate the penalty for what annoys you. But his primary attack bonus is still sub-par, especially since his weapon proficiency is only a +2, IIRC. I wouldn't call that Powergaming or Min/Maxing per se, he simply made the choice to build defensively. He's basically built a pseudo/secondary defender out of a striker at the expense of his primary role.
> 
> I honestly don't see it as a problem, it just requires you to approach it a little differently.  He'll have a rough time hitting Elites w/ buddies, etc. And focused fire is NOT DM cheese, is good tactics. The party does it (or should be) so so should you. That's not "evil DMing", that's playing the baddies to their ability, experience and intelligence to make the game fun and a challenge.



First, I havn't seen the level n encounter that is even vaguely challenging to my party.  It's more on par with a speed bump in a parking lot...it slows you down a little, but that's about it.
Second, the reason I am annoyed by Expertise is the same reason I'm annoyed by this.  It increases the disparity between those who have it and those who don't.  

[RANT] I am firmly in the camp of hit % should be about 50-60 at all levels.  If it isn't then how are you supposed to be able to use level n-4 to n+7 mobs against the party?  (I thought it was only n+4 until I was looking at the DMG yesterday and their encounter templates use n+5, n+6 and n+7).  At n-4 your hit chance becomes about 70-80% and at n+7 your hit chance becomes roughly 15-25% - reasonable because the number or critters goes up or down with the hit chance.  Without expertise those numbers start out OK at 1st level but at 30 they become 50 to 60% and -5 to 5%.  That is broken math.[/RANT]


----------



## Nail (Jun 15, 2009)

CovertOps said:


> [RANT] I am firmly in the camp of hit % should be about 50-60 at all levels.



This is kind of off-topic, but: I agree.

"The PCs should hit equal level foes about 55% of the time, without taking into account combat advantage, conditions, and buffs."


IMO, you've fixed the "Expertise" math problem fine...and it's *not *why this particular PC is giving you conniptions.


----------



## Lauberfen (Jun 15, 2009)

Agreed Expertise is irrelevant to this topic- you've taken a legitimate course, by all accounts, which should no real impact on the AC of your party. Even if they need tougher fights (as does any serious party in my experience, with or without expertise/a better fix), this should be done with more monsters close to level, rather than higher level monsters- if you look at the composition in the DMG, it's rare to have a fight where most of the opponents are much higher level than te party.

I think you've got a fair round of heplful tips- let us know when you've tried some of them out.


----------



## CovertOps (Jun 15, 2009)

Definitely a lot of ideas to use.  Unfortunately I only get to run my game once a month and it was last Saturday so it will be a while before I can get back to this with some results.


----------



## Ryujin (Jun 16, 2009)

Nail said:


> Nope.
> 
> The class feature would be even more deadly if he hadn't taken the hit to his attack roll.  The sacrifice is there.  (Plus he could have taken 3 feats to increase his damage, etc.)
> 
> ...




In other words let him toss out his Oath of Emnity on a target, then hit him with enemies that push or slide him away from that target. Suddenly he's just a sub-par fighter, with no one marked.


----------



## BobTheNob (Jun 16, 2009)

Ahh yes, the Avenger AC again...now lets all sing the lines together
"The avenger is fine as it is"
"The designers meant it to be that way"
"The avenger needs a high AC to survive"
"So what if the avenger has a high AC"

yada yada. Best of luck fixing your problem, but I think your in the wrong forum. Try house rules, cause thats what you are going to need...that and a player who understands that it is more important that his characters abilities are correct and relative with everyone elses than his own personnel glory.

Best of luck


----------



## Herschel (Jun 16, 2009)

Except his personal glory couldn't hit the broad side of a barn with a shotgun.


----------



## IanB (Jun 16, 2009)

Yeah unless the OP's game rolls stats instead of point buys them or something, what we're talking about is a striker with at best a +3 in his main attack stat, assuming he's playing a dex/wis or int/wis race, and almost nothing in the way of bonuses to other stats at all.

Things this means: he'll have a crappy amount of surges. His damage output will lag compared to other strikers. He has a large feat investment into a single defense, meaning he has very little to boost himself offensively. His Fort defense will be poor.

I think all of those things should conspire to make him relatively ineffective as a striker, especially with a minor amount of effort spent on getting monsters to stand next to him. Because of that his AC shouldn't really matter that much, because he shouldn't really be a priority target of reasonably intelligent monsters anyway.


----------



## rainsinger (Jun 16, 2009)

Ryujin said:


> Even with Oath of Emnity, he can't be a very effective Striker. Sure, he isn't going to get hit very often, but then again he isn't going to help the party much with his main attribute being a secondary/tertiary stat. And as you say, his NADs can't be all that great.
> 
> Did he take training with leather prior to taking hide proficiency, or did he jump straight to hide? That's a no-no.
> 
> ...




Well, take that a step further... he's basically given up EVERY feat he has to up his AC in one way or another, so he's not using a superior weapon or getting any other damage bonuses from feats or really ANY offensive usefulness from all those feats at all...

So while he is still technically a striker, really what he's done is convert his striker character over to a defender that can hop around a lot.

My second thought though is to look at this in a logical tactical way... Ex.: They go up against an encampment of goblins (or whatever). After a couple rounds of the minions and front-line warriors not being able to hit the guy, the magic users and/or artillery are going to view him as the "tank" or flat out highest threat, even though he might not be, and likely start pummeling him with ranged/magical attacks. In a real battle where there is no conventions or rules of conduct, you always go after supply lines first, and then you try to take out your biggest threats. In smaller battles that means take out the Leaders and then the people that appear to be the hardest to kill. Swarm tactics can be very useful here too... that avenger pisses off a few orc warriors and they start calling all the reinforcements on him, no amout of AC is going to outweigh the odds of getting hit at least once or twice per round when he's got 5 or 6 guys on him.

Though, you do have to give him credit for going for a really specific goal and hitting it.


----------



## Lancelot (Jun 16, 2009)

As a player and DM of Avengers, I have to agree with the majority of posts here. Of all the "unbalanced" problems to have, a high AC is by far the least worrying to me. Wizard "orb locks", 4+ ranger attacks per round, and battlerage vigor "damage reduction" are all bigger headaches.

Given my experience is that PCs are a little too easy to hit, I'd be okay to see a build that is "only" hit on a 15 or better. As noted, the PC has sacrificed some of their offensive capability for some more defensive options. Seems a fair choice to me.

Their hit points and surges are going to be poor, so when they get hit - they will feel it. Much more so than the defenders.

...and Avengers are always going to be in the thick of the fighting. They can't stand off like most other strikers (warlock, sorcerer, bow ranger, shuriken rogue) and they don't have the resilience of a barbarian. From my own play experience, my avenger's AC is the highest in the party... and I still end up dropping to zero hp as much as the warden. His AC is lower, but his hp and surges are huge.


----------



## Nail (Jun 16, 2009)

BobTheNob said:


> Ahh yes, the Avenger AC again...now lets all sing the lines together
> "The avenger is fine as it is"
> "The designers meant it to be that way"
> "The avenger needs a high AC to survive"
> "So what if the avenger has a high AC"...



Hmmmm.

The Avenger (the class, not this particular PC) might have a class AC bonus (+3) that's too high. We could discuss that angle, if you wish.  Is that what you're positing here?  Your sarcasm is making your point unclear.


----------



## Jools (Jun 16, 2009)

This is probably the last thing the OP wants to hear but, I really do think the mass of voices in this thread have a point. The avenger has severely neutered his capacity to damage to get such a high AC. His ability to take down monsters will be substantially less than other melee strikers (eg. barbarian).  I think the OP mentioned that none of his encounters pose any problems for his group. I think there is where the problem lies. The OP has been having difficulty balancing encounters for his PC group. Perhaps the noticeably hight AC of the avenger has been taking more of the blame than it should.


----------



## mevers (Jun 16, 2009)

IanB said:


> Yeah unless the OP's game rolls stats instead of point buys them or something, what we're talking about is a striker with at best a +3 in his main attack stat, assuming he's playing a dex/wis or int/wis race, and almost nothing in the way of bonuses to other stats at all.
> 
> Things this means: he'll have a crappy amount of surges. His damage output will lag compared to other strikers. He has a large feat investment into a single defense, meaning he has very little to boost himself offensively. His Fort defense will be poor.
> 
> I think all of those things should conspire to make him relatively ineffective as a striker, especially with a minor amount of effort spent on getting monsters to stand next to him. Because of that his AC shouldn't really matter that much, because he shouldn't really be a priority target of reasonably intelligent monsters anyway.




I couldn't have said it any better myself.

There are lots of good suggestions here for ways to damage the Avenger.

I think I would go the other way, and just ignore him. As soon as the monsters work out that they can't hit him very well, and he doesn't really bring the damage, why not just ignore him and go after other, more desireable targets (either squishier, or deal more damage). Render his high AC useless by just not attacking him.

Similar to how I would deal with a 'Tricked out' dwarven batterager who can't get hurt in melee.


----------



## Flipguarder (Jun 16, 2009)

Ultimate Defense
at will ✦ Martial, Weapon
Requirement: Must be using a shield
Standard Action Personal
Effect: All your defenses are increased by 100 and you are stunned until the end of the encounter.

I would say this power pretty well exaggerates what the op did. I wouldn't call this power very broken either


----------



## eriktheguy (Jun 16, 2009)

I would suggest that you just keep running the sessions as normal. He is a striker, so putting all that focus on AC is a sacrifice for him. If you penalize him by intentionally targeting his other defenses, or by otherwise metagaming, he probably will get angry, and would be right to. Don't discourage players from trying out new character builds by punishing them for it.
You said that the monsters seem to hit him on 16+ (thats about 25%). That's not so bad. If he has less damage output than an optimized striking avenger he isn't broken. This character obviously enjoys min-maxing and power gaming, and they will feel rewarded when their efforts help them to get through fights easier than you intended. If this is how they enjoy the game it is fine, so long as they are not far more powerful than the rest of the party.
Try playing normally for a few more sessions to see how it works out. Make sure that he is occasionally hit by higher level monsters, flankers, and non-AC defenses, but also make sure that he enjoys the benefits of his great AC score.
If he continues to enjoy combat and does not leave the rest of the party in the dust, then its ok. The only problem is if he is obviously more powerful than the other party members or if he makes challenging encounters too easy.

EDIT: Wait, something is wrong here. You say they need about 15-17 to hit the avenger. Yous say the defenders have 2 less AC. Then you need 13-15 to hit the defenders. Then you say that using higher level monsters makes the rest of the party get hit on 4+. This does not add up. If you increase the level of the monsters by 1 or 2 then they should start hitting the defenders on rolls of around 11-13, and the squishier party members on slightly lower rolls. If you did that the monsters would hit your avenger around 35%, your defenders around 45%, and the squishy party members just over 50%. No problems here.


----------



## keterys (Jun 16, 2009)

Sounded like his squishier ACs are actually about 6-8 lower than the Avenger and 4-6 lower than the defenders (27, 25, 19-21 per earlier post)... so to have a 40% chance to hit the Avenger, he'd have an 80% chance to hit his most squishy member and a 50% chance to hit a defender.

I do think people are overly optimistic about how much the avenger has nerfed his damage and attack bonus by getting bonuses to AC. It's definitely nerfed and I think the fighter comparison is a good one, but he'll still hit _plenty_ and do respectable damage. Depending on his Avenger build ignoring him will either bring his damage back to respectable levels or nerf him - if he has the 'I deal more damage when people attack me' to go with his super high AC, enemies will learn to just not bother OAing him pretty quickly.


----------



## Lauberfen (Jun 16, 2009)

Again, the +2 AC is not massive- for every 10 attack rolls against him, only 1 would have hit a defender with 2 less AC.

And attacking his other defences is not metagaming- within a few rounds it will be very clear to the monsters that he has a high AC, so they'll try other approaches.


----------



## tiornys (Jun 16, 2009)

This character isn't the best example, but the Avenger's potential AC is problematic.   Upgrading from Leather to Hide is extremely expensive for an Avenger, and not necessary.  By diverting the stat points this build used on Str and Con into Wis, an Avenger can easily achieve an AC only one less than that of this build and have a strong Wis score as well.

t~


----------



## eriktheguy (Jun 16, 2009)

Lauberfen said:


> And attacking his other defences is not metagaming- within a few rounds it will be very clear to the monsters that he has a high AC, so they'll try other approaches.




I think OP meant that it would be meta-gaming to choose monsters that didn't target AC just because of the avenger.


----------



## Blackbrrd (Jun 16, 2009)

Personally, I would hit the squishies until they went down. Why attack the defenders or the avenger? Even with the -2 mark penalty they get a +6 bonus to hit the guy with 19 AC compared to the Avenger, or +4 bonus compared to a Defender.

Throw some brutes and some high damage mobs at the party and watch them tear through the squishies. Remember, the defenders only get one immidiate action per round...


----------



## eriktheguy (Jun 16, 2009)

Blackbrrd said:


> Personally, I would hit the squishies until they went down. Why attack the defenders or the avenger? Even with the -2 mark penalty they get a +6 bonus to hit the guy with 19 AC compared to the Avenger, or +4 bonus compared to a Defender.
> 
> Throw some brutes and some high damage mobs at the party and watch them tear through the squishies. Remember, the defenders only get one immidiate action per round...




The defenders get one immediate action during each enemies turn. If fighter marks more than one enemy he can immediate reaction to attack each. The same is true for opportunity attacks.


----------



## Iron Sky (Jun 16, 2009)

eriktheguy said:


> The defenders get one immediate action during each enemies turn. If fighter marks more than one enemy he can immediate reaction to attack each. The same is true for opportunity attacks.




Negative.  Any player or NPC or monster or anything gets one immediate action per turn.  Period.

Opportunity attacks are the only ones that are per enemies' turn.


----------



## MrBeens (Jun 16, 2009)

Iron Sky said:


> Negative.  Any player or NPC or monster or anything gets one immediate action per turn.  Period.
> 
> Opportunity attacks are the only ones that are per enemies' turn.




Yes.
Each character gets one immediate action per round (defender reaction to marks is this).
Each character gets one opportunity action per other characters turn (defender reactions to marks is not this)


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 16, 2009)

Let's pretend for a moment that everything is alright with the rules, regardless of whether you agree or not.

This Avenger build is basically sacrificing offense for defense. He does deal less damage (hits less often and hits for less damage) but is hard to hit. He might still deal more damage than a non-Striker. He still doesn't have the recovery ability, hit points and healing surges of a typical Defender. 

If the Avenger is too hard to hit, think about what tactics the enemy would need.
1) Do not attack the Avenger.
2) Move so that the Avenger doesn't benefit from his Oath of Enmity (note that this works against every Avenger. 
3) Focus fire on "squishier" targets.
4) Attack non AC/Reflex defenses. 

You don't necessarily have to adapt the encounters you use, just the way the monsters in an encounter act.


----------



## Lauberfen (Jun 16, 2009)

eriktheguy said:


> I think OP meant that it would be meta-gaming to choose monsters that didn't target AC just because of the avenger.




Ah. Well as the DM, you are a metagame entity anyway- you know the characters stats, and can create challenges accordingly.

I'm not talking about throwing in monsters that make no sense, but there are lots of non AC attacks out there- probably close to half, even at Heroic tier.


----------



## Ryujin (Jun 16, 2009)

Just as an aside, this player is contributing to the party hitting grindspace. If he isn't taking out a Striker's share of enemy, then the encounters are going to drag. Until recently I was finding this with my Feylock, which is undoubtedly the weakest of the Striker builds.


----------



## Drakhar (Jun 16, 2009)

Truthfully if there is that much of a difference between the defenders and the 'squishy' targets AC they deserve to be beat on. You want your defenders to have an ac not all that far from the softer targets to make it much more viable to attack the defender instead of ignoring them. As far as the Avenger having high ac, I find it interesting that people complain about Avengers but not Swordmages, who have their Primary stat boosting AC as well as a class feature providing the same boost to AC as the Avenger.


----------



## CubeKnight (Jun 16, 2009)

Drakhar said:


> Truthfully if there is that much of a difference between the defenders and the 'squishy' targets AC they deserve to be beat on. You want your defenders to have an ac not all that far from the softer targets to make it much more viable to attack the defender instead of ignoring them. As far as the Avenger having high ac, I find it interesting that people complain about Avengers but not Swordmages, who have their Primary stat boosting AC as well as a class feature providing the same boost to AC as the Avenger.



But Swordmages are Defenders...


----------



## Ryujin (Jun 16, 2009)

Drakhar said:


> Truthfully if there is that much of a difference between the defenders and the 'squishy' targets AC they deserve to be beat on. You want your defenders to have an ac not all that far from the softer targets to make it much more viable to attack the defender instead of ignoring them. As far as the Avenger having high ac, I find it interesting that people complain about Avengers but not Swordmages, who have their Primary stat boosting AC as well as a class feature providing the same boost to AC as the Avenger.




The bonus is variable, depending upon the weapon that the Swordmage uses. Go two-handed and you lose two points of AC. It also drops if the Swordmage goes down.


----------



## Drakhar (Jun 16, 2009)

Ryujin said:


> The bonus is variable, depending upon the weapon that the Swordmage uses. Go two-handed and you lose two points of AC. It also drops if the Swordmage goes down.




Unless they're a deva in which case with 3 feats they get the +2 back from using a 2-hander, or +2 extra using a 1 hander, and it persists even if they drop, they also qualify for hide easier and as they have Intelligence as an attack stat they're likely to have a higher base AC before the warding is applied anyways. 

As far as the Swordmage being a Defender and the Avenger a striker, the Avenger is a Striker/Defender who is based around going toe to toe with the big guy while the rest of the party deals with the rest of the enemies.


----------



## Herschel (Jun 16, 2009)

Have you ever built & played a Swordmage for any length of time? Feats are a prescious commodity for them especially. There are VERY tough choices to be made.


----------



## Nail (Jun 16, 2009)

Wildly off-topic, but: IME, Swordmages are quite difficult to build effectively.  They just aren't an easy defender class to play....so I'm not sure the comparison to the Avenger class is useful.


----------



## Drakhar (Jun 16, 2009)

Herschel said:


> Have you ever built & played a Swordmage for any length of time? Feats are a prescious commodity for them especially. There are VERY tough choices to be made.




This is hardly limited to Swordmages however, and it doesn't change the point honestly. 



Nail said:


> Wildly off-topic, but: IME, Swordmages are quite difficult to build effectively.  They just aren't an easy defender class to play....so I'm not sure the comparison to the Avenger class is useful.




I agree comparing them doesn't accomplish much, and truthfully wasn't my intent, I was simply pointing out that it's hardly fair to complain that one class is overpowered because it is 'unhittable' when another class is equally as unhittable.


----------



## brehobit (Jun 16, 2009)

My 2 cents, not having seen one played, is that getting ride of that bonus AC feat for avengers might well solve all the problems.  It just isn't needed and gives a bit too much bang for the buck at higher levels.  

Taking hide is just too much from a stats viewpoint, so anyone doing that is really going to suck.  Getting rid of the feat gets them down to defender AC or maybe one less.  That's fine (good, but certainly fine).

Mark


----------



## CovertOps (Jun 16, 2009)

A few quick notes to clarify some issues brought up by other posters.

Party composition was as follows:
Paladin(STR), Swordmage(assault), Avenger(Censure of Retribution), Ranger(STR), Shaman, Warlord(tac?), FWIW I think the Avenger is a Deva.

The encounter in question I was really feeling the AC swing because I was using Gnolls which don't have any attacks vs. F/R/W.

So far I've liked the idea about making the rest of the party pay and ignore the defenders and Avenger.  Have to be careful here not to meta-game the first round or two and go straight for the squishies (*exception - The BBEG is watching them move through his fortification so knows who to go after first when they arrive).  I also like the idea of surround, but ignore the Avenger to nullify his 2 best abilities (2 die rolls to attack and power-up from the Censure).

This particular encounter was the last with the Gnolls and next they are moving on to a dragon cult.  I think I'll steal the themed idea and give them an encounter power matching their "god".  I'm thinking something that attacks Fort


----------



## Nail (Jun 17, 2009)

Level 6, right?  So the "dragon cult" encounters you're thinking about might have a Greenscale Marsh Mystic.  Some interesting Ref and Fort attacks there.


----------



## BobTheNob (Jun 17, 2009)

Drakhar said:


> Truthfully if there is that much of a difference between the defenders and the 'squishy' targets AC they deserve to be beat on. You want your defenders to have an ac not all that far from the softer targets to make it much more viable to attack the defender instead of ignoring them. As far as the Avenger having high ac, I find it interesting that people complain about Avengers but not Swordmages, who have their Primary stat boosting AC as well as a class feature providing the same boost to AC as the Avenger.




Other tanks use shields, swardmages dont (or if they do, loose 2 pts of AC, making it a pointless excercise). Look at these lvl 1 compares
Swordmage
Leather : 2
Int (assume18) : 4
Warding : 3
total = 9

Fighter
Scale = 7
Large Shield = 2
total = 9

Even as you go up, the swordmage only has 1 "up" on the fighter I have found, meaning he scales the same.

Point with this is that the swordmages +3 is well in line because it is limited against the armor they start with, the avengers however can just scale and scale and scale, up up up! More armor, more feats!! More AC. Let make all creature 4-5 levels higher than the avenger just so they have a chance of hitting him, and then watch the other party members just die off because they cant match one player!

Its like 3.5 all over again, very sad


----------



## Herschel (Jun 17, 2009)

Your analysis is quite misguided and leaves out a number of facts, such as the Avenger's lack of accuracy for building straight defense and the abilities/feats available to defenders to0 boost their AC without having to spend a feat or two just to GET armor.


----------



## Diirk (Jun 17, 2009)

If he's Censure of Retribution, doesn't that only kick in if he gets HIT, not just attacked? That makes his high AC hurt him even more (although honestly, not getting hit is better than 4 extra damage).

A point about his damage tho: not just his chance to hit is nerfed, he doesn't have any damage increasing feats. So he'll hit and do (compared to what he could be doing) very little damage. If he's no threat to the monsters, why would they even bother to attack him ?


----------



## Ryujin (Jun 17, 2009)

Drakhar said:


> Unless they're a deva in which case with 3 feats they get the +2 back from using a 2-hander, or +2 extra using a 1 hander, and it persists even if they drop, they also qualify for hide easier and as they have Intelligence as an attack stat they're likely to have a higher base AC before the warding is applied anyways.
> 
> As far as the Swordmage being a Defender and the Avenger a striker, the Avenger is a Striker/Defender who is based around going toe to toe with the big guy while the rest of the party deals with the rest of the enemies.




From the sounds of things he doesn't have those extra feats to spend, though he might later. Remember, he cashed in two feats just to get hide armour.


----------



## LostSoul (Jun 17, 2009)

Here are my thoughts, assuming that this issue is spoiling the game in some amount for you:

1. Talk it over with the players.  Bring up your concerns.  Make sure they know that your job is to make the game fun and interesting.  See if you can't come to some kind of compromise to make the game more fun.  This may mean accepting the AC and using my next two solutions:

2. Add in creatures, traps, or terrain that target weak defenses.

3. Add in creatures, traps, or terrain that deal automatic damage.


Something like an ogre who bull-rushes the Avenger into a flaming pit is always a nice trick.  Make sure that all your encounters have something like that in them and hopefully you'll get some more excitement back.

I can't think of many monsters that have zones, but an NPC wizard with Stinking Cloud (lvl 5 elite) will hurt the Avenger.  Other class-based monsters might give you similar results.


----------



## ArmoredSaint (Jun 17, 2009)

I am firmly in the camp that believes the Avenger's potential AC is far too high.  I have house-ruled that the class's AC bonus feature works _only_ with Cloth armour.  IMO, this is the perfect fix for the problem, and I'd love to see WotC issue some official errata that amounts to the same thing.


----------



## Nail (Jun 17, 2009)

It seems to me the biggest bang for the buck for an Avenger is just taking leather armor.  +2 AC (at least), one less feat, and no stat pre-reqs.  The OP's player missed a trick, methinks.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 17, 2009)

It's the biggest "bang for buck" for anyone only proficient with Cloth Armor.


----------



## Ryujin (Jun 17, 2009)

Nail said:


> It seems to me the biggest bang for the buck for an Avenger is just taking leather armor.  +2 AC (at least), one less feat, and no stat pre-reqs.  The OP's player missed a trick, methinks.




I thought the same when I made us a Censure of Pursuit Avenger, as my "B" character in our current campaign. Going for that extra single point, at the cost of a feat that could have significantly more effect elsewhere, seemed counter productive.


----------



## Stalker0 (Jun 17, 2009)

In 4e, it is so easy (and frankly I think expected) for groups of monsters to include a few guys that target nonAc defenses that I don't see it being too much of a problem. Though it definitely makes the hydra sad


----------



## Herschel (Jun 17, 2009)

Nail said:


> It seems to me the biggest bang for the buck for an Avenger is just taking leather armor. +2 AC (at least), one less feat, and no stat pre-reqs. The OP's player missed a trick, methinks.




This is my thought also, but Improved Armor of Faith is fine too.


----------



## outsider (Jun 17, 2009)

I'm of the opinion that the AC Avenger is basically a trap for minmaxers.  While AC is nice, it isn't an important tool to the Avenger's role.  To get the high AC, he has to give up alot of his resources that should be dedicated to damage dealing.

Look at it this way.  The player in question is clearly a minmaxer.  If he wasn't maximizing his AC, he'd probably be maximizing something else.  And that something else would probably be either to hit or damage.  In my experience most DMs and players find offensive disparities to be FAR more problematic than defensive disparities.  If you try to take away/neutralize his AC advantage, he'll likely switch to some other sort of advantage that you will find even more troublesome.

Minmaxers get their joy from increasing a stat to maximum.  AC is one of the least harmful stats he could be maxing, so let him have his fun.  If he was a powergamer rather than a min maxer, he'd probably have about 2 less points in AC with a signifigantly higher to hit/damage bonus, making him a FAR more effective striker, and a more powerful character overall.  Frankly, the AC Avenger is a poor choice of character, designed to lure in a specific type of player.


----------



## CovertOps (Jun 17, 2009)

I think I just need to "show" the Avengers player just how useful his high AC is about every other battle.  I expect it will take about 2-3 encounters of being pummeled with 7's or even lower on the die to want to rework his character.  I bet I can even just use LOTS of level n mobs.  Maybe an encounter total of n+2 of level n mobs so I have about 8-9 mobs vs. the party of 5-6


----------



## outsider (Jun 17, 2009)

CovertOps said:


> I expect it will take about 2-3 encounters of being pummeled with 7's or even lower on the die to want to rework his character.




Coming from a powergamer, I don't think you really want this.  His character isn't nearly as powerful as he thinks it is.  If he redesigns it, it'll probably be signifigantly better offensively, potentially enough to start causing problems.  When a minmaxer designs a character that isn't as powerful as he thinks it is, my solution is usually to let him keep believing it so he doesn't go back to the drawing board and make something that actually is powerful.

What problems are caused by his high AC specifically?  I realise that it means you are having a hard time hitting him, but how much of a problem is that really?  He has no way of encouraging enemies to attack him I'm sure, so he's not out defendering the defenders.  It's highly likely that he's not outdamaging the strikers either with that build.  What you've got is a minmaxer with a build that is inneffective at anything other than survival, and has no way to hog the spotlight from other players.  If it were me, I'd just let him keep thinking that he's beaten the system.


----------



## CovertOps (Jun 17, 2009)

outsider said:


> Coming from a powergamer, I don't think you really want this.  His character isn't nearly as powerful as he thinks it is.  If he redesigns it, it'll probably be signifigantly better offensively, potentially enough to start causing problems.  When a minmaxer designs a character that isn't as powerful as he thinks it is, my solution is usually to let him keep believing it so he doesn't go back to the drawing board and make something that actually is powerful.
> 
> What problems are caused by his high AC specifically?  I realise that it means you are having a hard time hitting him, but how much of a problem is that really?  He has no way of encouraging enemies to attack him I'm sure, so he's not out defendering the defenders.  It's highly likely that he's not outdamaging the strikers either with that build.  What you've got is a minmaxer with a build that is inneffective at anything other than survival, and has no way to hog the spotlight from other players.  If it were me, I'd just let him keep thinking that he's beaten the system.




I don't necessarily "want" to do this, but I believe if I follow the process of intelligent monsters and start 
a) ignoring him (and the defenders for that matter) with attacks vs. AC 
b) start focusing on other more squishy targets 
c) redirect F/R/W attacks to him (and the defenders - when there are mobs with those attack types present)
then I'm sure he will find he doesn't like his build for one of those reasons.  Either he will dislike being hit so frequently by the F/R/W attacks, or he will dislike that he never gets to use his Censure of Retribution because I don't attack him with monsters other than his mark.  

The player in question likes to hog the spotlight as much as possible.  If I only use monsters that attack AC then he gets what he wants and I get 3 party members laying on the ground because I focused fire on them.  My problem really is not so much that I can't hit him, but the other issues I'll have if I ignore him.  I just need to knock him down a peg or two is all.  Problem is if I do that he'll feel inferior again and probably want to redesign.


----------



## Nail (Jun 17, 2009)

CovertOps said:


> .....The player in question likes to hog the spotlight as much as possible....
> 
> 
> ..... I just need to knock him down a peg or two is all.  Problem is if I do that he'll feel inferior again and probably want to redesign.



....Yeah.

IME, you don't want to "knock him down a peg".  What you want is to have a fun game!  Fixating on this PC is a distraction from the larger purpose, and will lead you down all sorts of dead-end alleys.

This thread has made it abundantly clear to you that this PC "ain't all that".  You now know that.  But it doesn't follow that you must make this player "know that".  In fact, you probably want him to keep the character as is.

I'm sensing (and I think others are as well) that your problem isn't necessarily with this super AC avenger, but with the player himself.  Often these sorts of problems can be worked out outside of the game, either in person or via email.  You are all there to have fun and hang out with friends, right?  If so, you *all* have a larger, common purpose.


----------



## outsider (Jun 17, 2009)

CovertOps said:


> The player in question likes to hog the spotlight as much as possible.  If I only use monsters that attack AC then he gets what he wants and I get 3 party members laying on the ground because I focused fire on them.




I'm not sure what you are getting at here.  Are you saying that you are forced to use monsters that can hit higher ACs, and this leads to the lower AC characters getting crushed?  If that's the problem, my advice is don't bother bringing in monsters to beat his AC.  You don't neccessarily have to do damage to every character in every fight.

Are you saying monsters don't bother attacking him because they can't hit him?  There's two defenders in the group you described, they should be able to handle the heat.  If anything, his high AC makes it a bit easier for the defenders to manage monster aggro.

Don't get tied up trying to beat this guy, because as soon as you do, he'll come in with something new that's just as bad if not worse.  Has the "everybody dying but the Avenger" problem actually come up yet?  That problem is very much under your control, and if it's happening frequently, odds are those situations would have been total party kills if it wasn't for the high AC.  If you are just worried about it happening, don't be.  Once it happens, just start scaling back your encounters a bit.  The fatal flaw to his character is that he can't use his strength actively in any way.  He can only dominate the game if -you- take down the rest of the party.  Just don't do that, and he never gets the opportunity to hog the spotlight.


----------



## Jack Colby (Jun 17, 2009)

He gave himself an advantage, and you need to punish him for it?  Why not let him have his high AC and stop worrying that you can't hit him "enough"?  That's what high ACs are for, and what makes him happy.  Why must all PC abilities be equal, and similar hits/damage suffered by all?


----------



## Meeble (Jun 17, 2009)

I hate to speak out of turn, but it almost sounds to me like you (and possibly other people at your table) have more of an issue with this particular player than just his maxed out AC.

If I'm right, getting to the root of that issue and resolving it will make for a more fun table in the long run.


----------



## Ryujin (Jun 18, 2009)

CovertOps said:


> I don't necessarily "want" to do this, but I believe if I follow the process of intelligent monsters and start
> a) ignoring him (and the defenders for that matter) with attacks vs. AC
> b) start focusing on other more squishy targets
> c) redirect F/R/W attacks to him (and the defenders - when there are mobs with those attack types present)
> ...




Enemy controllers disable the defenders and, perhaps, the Avenger through the use of stun/daze/forced movement. After that the squishies are open for attack by the regs. Perfectly predictable, reasonable, and prudent actions for intelligent enemies.


----------



## ArmoredSaint (Jun 18, 2009)

Mostly, I just think it's thematically wrong for a character in light armour to so easily surpass the AC of a character in heavy armour.


----------



## Herschel (Jun 18, 2009)

It happened in previous editions too. Rogues with Dex beat fighters in chain pretty often.


----------



## Nail (Jun 18, 2009)

ArmoredSaint said:


> Mostly, I just think it's thematically wrong for a character in light armour to so easily surpass the AC of a character in heavy armour.



This is an issue that was in 4e right out-of-the-gate - with PH1 - before supplements.  Light armor is just better than heavy armor, so long as the PC has high Dex or Int.  Note that I'm not claiming it's either good or bad.  It's just the way the game is built.  

The avenger class AC bonus just makes the issue harder to miss.

FWIW, consider that avengers are without a shield (thus no +2 AC, +2 Ref from Hvy shield), and pay a significant Ability Score price to get that last +1 AC from Hide.  So the math works out to:

+3 AC (class benefit) = +1 AC (marginal benefit of hide over leather) + 2 AC/Ref (Hvy Shield) 

Giving the Avengers a +3 class bonus to AC isn't as outlandish as you might think.


----------



## keterys (Jun 18, 2009)

Is that factoring in their improved AC feat, though?


----------



## Nail (Jun 18, 2009)

keterys said:


> Is that factoring in their improved AC feat, though?



As I'm sure you know, the answer is: "nope".


----------



## Herschel (Jun 18, 2009)

And so what if it doesn't?

Why should quick, nimble melee characters be terrible? Heavy armor went out of favor in history too as it got to a point of diminishing returns. Instead of letting their armor absorb hits, they stepped out of the way of them.


----------



## Nail (Jun 18, 2009)

Herschel said:


> Heavy armor went out of favor in history too as it got to a point of diminishing returns. Instead of letting their armor absorb hits, they stepped out of the way of them.



Heh, heh.

Do you really want to discuss why heavy armor went out of favor in the Real World?  (....and how that applies _in any way _to the fantasy world of 4e D&D?)

I think - if you pause to consider - a sensible answer would be: "Nope".


----------



## Herschel (Jun 18, 2009)

Bring.
It.
On.

Firearm wielding Gnomes on Dinosaurs rock! 

I'm just pointing out that there's more than one archtype for fighters that can be viable and for various reasons. Quick swordsmen scoring numerous hits vs. large swordsmen scoring one big hit both can do the same total "damage". They just avoid taking damage in different ways. Arms and armor were always a chess game. Look at Bannockburn. Heavy armor was not to the British favor. (Neither were heavy horse in mud)

For "realism", Weapons vs. Armor charts were probably best, but a pain in the butt from a game standpoint.

A fighter can spend feats to increase his AC too: Plate, two-weapon defense, etc.


----------



## Nail (Jun 18, 2009)

Herschel said:


> Why should quick, nimble melee characters be terrible?






Herschel said:


> I'm just pointing out that there's more than one archtype for fighters that can be viable and for various reasons.



Good.  Your second statement is better than your first, methinks. 

I think most would agree that having multiple types of "melee-types" is a Good Thing _(TM)_.  ...but that's not the issue that *ArmoredSaint *brought up.  His point is - I think - that a melee class with light armor has a better AC than a melee class with heavy armor.  There's something a little jarring in that statement.


...and FWIW, it was the mud and the buried pots that did it, not the heavy armor of the English.


----------



## ArmoredSaint (Jun 18, 2009)

Herschel said:


> Look at Bannockburn. Heavy armor was not to the British favor. (Neither were heavy horse in mud)




Okay, let's.

Bannockburn is one of only a handful of battles the Scots ever won against the English.  The fact is, the English(who were invariably more heavily-armoured than the Scots) trounced them in literally dozens of other battles in history.  

List of battles between Scotland and England - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The English handily won most of the battles in which they faced the Scots.  Modern "Celtic Fever" and that awful Braveheart movie are what make the public remember the very few times in history the Scots actually won.  

It is noteworthy that the lack of armour on the part of the Scots (especially the highlanders) is what caused them to take such heavy casualties in several such battles  (see Homildon hill in particular).  Scotland was a poor, backwards nation, and was always a generation or so behind England and the Continent in arms and armour development.

Ironically, the early 16th century saw the Scots begin to outfit themselves in decent plate armour imported from Germany or the Low Countries, and English chroniclers note that, at the battle of Flodden in 1513, this armour rendered the English archery ineffective.  But the Scots still lost.

I'd also like to point out that it wasn't heavy armour that lost Bannockburn for the English.  What's more, the Scottish upper class were just as heavily armoured as the English at that battle.  The battle is not a referendum on the effectiveness of heavy armour.  

I don't think it was anything other than increasing use of massed gunfire that finally drove heavy armour from the battlefield.  Prior to its advent, everyone in Europe who could afford it tried to acquire the very best armour available.  You don't see anyone, no matter how highly trained, opting for lesser armour when they had access to better.  Heavy armour wa simply better at keeping you alive in the press of battle than lighter stuff was.  Armour worked.

The game statistic is called *Armour* Class for a reason:  Heavy armour _should_ rule this stat.  It's just _right_ from the point of view of both theme and verisimilitude.  I'm not saying that the agile, lightly-armoured fighter archetype should suck compared to the man in plate, but I do think that good armour should represent the very pinnacle of personal defense in this game--_not_ wearing animal hides and maxing out your dexterity.


----------



## Herschel (Jun 19, 2009)

Bannockburn and Stirling were examples of mobility being important due to terrain. In the Battle of Stirling Bridge, the English basically got "swamped" and separated when the bridge was essentially taken out. At Bannockburn, the terrain was turned against the English when they were forced to the bottoms. These were relatively isolated occurances, yes, but they happened.

There are simply times when mobility is a better defense than heavy armor.

An excerpt from the very link you used:
"There now occurred one of the most memorable episodes in Scottish history. Henry de Bohun, nephew of the Earl of Hereford, was riding ahead of his companions when he caught sight of the Scottish king. De Bohun lowered his lance and began a charge that carried him to lasting fame. King Robert was mounted on a small palfrey and armed only with a battle-axe.[9] He had no armour on. As de Bohun's great war-horse thundered towards him, he stood his ground, watched with mounting anxiety by his own army. With the Englishman only feet away, Bruce turned aside, stood in his stirrups and hit the knight so hard with his axe that he split his helmet and head in two. This small incident became in a larger sense a symbol of the war itself: the one side heavily armed but lacking agility; the other highly mobile and open to opportunity. Rebuked by his commanders for the enormous risk he had taken, the king only expressed regret that he had broken the shaft of his axe.
Cheered by this heroic encounter, Bruce's division rushed forward to engage the main enemy force. For the English, so says the author of the _Vita Edwardi Secundi_ (_Life of Edward II_), this was the beginning of their troubles. After some fierce fighting, in which the Earl of Gloucester was knocked off his horse, the knights of the vanguard were forced to retreat to the Tor Wood. The Scots, eager to pursue, were held back by the command of the king.
In the meantime, another English cavalry force under Robert Clifford and Henry de Beaumont skirted the Scottish position to the east and rode towards Stirling, advancing as far as St. Ninians. Bruce spotted the manoeuvre and ordered Randolph's schiltron to intercept.
Randolph's action was to be a sampler of the main contest the following day: unsupported by archers, the horsemen were unable to make any impression on the Scots spearmen, precisely what had happened in the opening stages of Falkirk. The difference now was that the schiltrons had learnt mobility and how to keep formation at the same time. The English squadron was broken, some seeking refuge in the nearby castle, others fleeing back to the army. The captives included Sir Thomas Gray, whose son and namesake was later to base his account of the Battle of Bannockburn in his book, the _Scalacronica_, on his father's memories."


----------



## Herschel (Jun 19, 2009)

Nail said:


> His point is - I think - that a melee class with light armor has a better AC than a melee class with heavy armor. There's something a little jarring in that statement.





I'm just under 6'4" and have played around a bit with swords, including wickers. I'm strong, but not really all that nimble. I was a RB in football in to college. I wasn't asked to run outside all that much. Two things from this: 

Smaller, quicker opponents are hard to hit because of their mobility. A quickly moving target is tougher to hit than a slower one. 

Even in football, look at the padding. Receivers and D-Backs, the speed positions, wear lighter, smaller pads for a reason (ie:lighter "armor"). A lineman would never get away with that level of padding because of their "role" in constantly crashing with other big boys. Their protection comes from their build and heavier pads. Receivers and D-Backs protection comes from the ability to more often avoid contact with the heavies. Tackling a receiver in the open field is MUCH tougher than tackling a lineman.


----------



## ArmoredSaint (Jun 19, 2009)

I'm still not seeing evidence that the English lost at Bannockburn simply because their armour was too heavy.

The original point you made that I responded to was: "_Heavy armor was not to the British favor".  _Most of the time, though, yes it was.  

Also from the link I posted:



> _King Robert turned away those who were not adequately equipped...It is highly probable that a large proportion of the spearmen had acquired more extensive armour given that the country had been at war for nearly twenty years. This is in contrast to the modern romantic notion of the Scots army, which depicts its foot soldiers clad in kilts, painted woad and little else._




Once again, Bannockburn is _not_ a referendum on the effectiveness of heavy armour.  QED, the scots themselves were armoured.

At least one chronicle of the battle of Flodden notes that the contingent of unarmoured highland scots present at the battle melted away under the arrow fire while the better-armoured scots "_abode the most dangerous shot of arrows, which sore them annoyed, but yet it hit them in some bare place, did them no harm_".  Now, Flodden field was so muddy, that many soldiers on both the English and Scottish sides took off their shoes for better purchase in the mud.  Being more lightly armoured did not do those highlanders any good at all. I'm sure there were some among them who were pretty nimble fellows, but they still died because they weren't wearing adequate body armour.

Sure, it might be tougher to _hit_ a lightly-clad agile man, but it should be harder to _hurt_ a man clad in steel armour.


----------



## Flipguarder (Jun 19, 2009)

holy crap this thread took an odd turn!

And I've just decided in any thread where they are talking about things I don't get and don't have the patience to study I'm going to say this:


I agree with Nail.


----------



## Kordeth (Jun 19, 2009)

ArmoredSaint said:


> Sure, it might be tougher to _hit_ a lightly-clad agile man, but it should be harder to _hurt_ a man clad in steel armour.




Luckily, 4E abstracts those distinctions out sufficiently that, from a mechanical standpoint, they're largely irrelevant. Missed attacks due to high AC from heavy armor can be described as bouncing off the armor with little or no effect, while missed attacks due to crazy-Dex-monkey light armor AC can be described as nimble dodges, feints, and evasions.


----------



## Flipguarder (Jun 19, 2009)

I like to describe Avengers as being given an aura by their god as a reward for charging head first into the front lines of battle believing that their god will protect them. This aura slightly blurs their outline as well as provides a small amount of force-like protection.


----------



## Lauberfen (Jun 19, 2009)

I think comparisons to warfare are relatively useless, although they may be all we have- D&D is not warfare, it is at most small-scale skirmishing, and usually fights have only a few opponents on a side.

Armour in warfare serves to protect you from random blows, arrows etc, not a single opponent engaging you in melee.

In a duelling situation, I have no idea of how useful armour would be. I suspect that the reduced mobility (although not as great as people might expect, particularly with sophisticated plate mails) and especially reduced vision might outweigh the benefits of the increased protection- it is likely that a solid blow will incapacitate even a well-armoured opponent.

Another point- heavy armour was always designed for use on horseback, and D&D is not about cavalry battles.


----------



## ArmoredSaint (Jun 19, 2009)

Lauberfen said:


> Another point- heavy armour was always designed for use on horseback, and D&D is not about cavalry battles.



Not necessarily.  For most of the Hundred Years War and the Wars of the Roses, the English made their heavily-armoured knights and men-at-arms dismount and fight on foot with their archers.  




> ...it is likely that a solid blow will incapacitate even a well-armoured opponent.



I suppose that depends on what you're striking him with.  A wielder of a pick or mace designed to injure an opponent in heavy armour might well expect decent results with a solid blow, but you could bang your sword (especially a sword wielded in one hand) all day on a man in full plate, and still not do him any appreciable harm.  



> Missed attacks due to high AC from heavy armor can be described as bouncing off the armor with little or no effect, while missed attacks due to crazy-Dex-monkey light armor AC can be described as nimble dodges, feints, and evasions.



And that being so, I argue that the character in heavy armour should still have a higher AC than any high-dex character in no/light armour.


----------



## DrSpunj (Jun 19, 2009)

Flipguarder said:
			
		

> And I've just decided in any thread where they are talking about things I don't get and don't have the patience to study I'm going to say this:
> 
> I agree with Nail.




Ouch, that's going to go to his head!


----------



## Ryujin (Jun 19, 2009)

The virtually unhittable or virtually unkillable, lightly armoured guy is a staple of fantasy movies and literature. They're either too fast or too tough for the guys in armour to take down.

"My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die."


----------



## Particle_Man (Jun 19, 2009)

I see Avengers as Ninja.  They flip around, kill people, and are impossible to hit.  They even simulate the "One Ninja" phenomenon, as they try to get an opponent away from the rest of the opponents (and thus their allies) and have their own little duel off to the side, while the rest of the party has their mass battle.

And I would suggest to the OP that you simply let the Avenger be awesome.  If the player gets his jollies from being unhittable, then in the initial part of the combat have some monsters occasionally rush the Avenger, and describe their series of misses, etc.  Then the player will have fun.  Then have the elite controller say "Ignore him, you fools!  Go after their Wizard/Cleric!" or "Protect me from this maniac, loyal minions!" as you see fit.


----------



## Nail (Jun 19, 2009)

Herschel said:


> Bannockburn and Stirling were examples of....



  <chuckle>

Are you attempting to use the outcome of a mass-battle to define the 4e D&D _Armour _Class of a player character in a particular armor?  (Seriously?)



Herschel said:


> There are simply times when mobility is a better defense than heavy armor.



  Huh.  You are.  Oooooookay then.  

You must realize that entire Ph.D. theses have been written on the outcomes of Bannockburn or of Stirling.  Attempting to boil all of that down into a statement like _"...therefore, PCs in Light armor should have better ACs than PCs in heavy armor_" is, quite frankly, madness.  Plenty fun, but silly all the same.

Instead, consider the differences within their context: the 4e D&D game.  Think about "how it plays", how balanced it is, and how much it evokes the standard fantasy setting.

Should a *hero* in heavy plate armor be damaged more easily than someone in light armor?


----------



## Nail (Jun 19, 2009)

_"Oh no, that man has a knife....and all I'm wearing is plate armor!  Yikes!!!"_


----------



## Flipguarder (Jun 19, 2009)

Nail said:


> _"Oh no, that man has a knife....and all I'm wearing is plate armor!  Yikes!!!"_




When the guy next to you has a divine aura that comes directly from their god to protect them and the knife is 5 feet long, bleeding, and held by a Death Titan then yes that would be the correct response.


----------



## Nail (Jun 19, 2009)

<chuckle>

That does seem to be the way of things, doesn't it?


----------



## Flipguarder (Jun 19, 2009)

Honestly I see very hard problems with allowing one feat to get whatever armor you want, at least among defenders, most defenders have either plate or very good reasons why they don't want it. Maybe I'm just being naive.

But plate isnt the pure awesomeness that it was in 3.X, yeah.


----------



## Kordeth (Jun 19, 2009)

ArmoredSaint said:


> I suppose that depends on what you're striking him with.  A wielder of a pick or mace designed to injure an opponent in heavy armour might well expect decent results with a solid blow, but you could bang your sword (especially a sword wielded in one hand) all day on a man in full plate, and still not do him any appreciable harm.




In the real world, yes. D&D is not trying to simulate the real world, so none of this applies. If you're looking for accurate representations of medieval warfare, D&D 4E is not remotely the game for you, even before you add in the wizards and dragons and such.



> And that being so, I argue that the character in heavy armour should still have a higher AC than any high-dex character in no/light armour.




What about a guy in light/no armor with a high Dex who is blessed with the divine protection of a wrathful god? Pretty sure there weren't any of those at Bannockburn.

90% of the time the heavy armor guy _will _have a better AC. What we're looking at here is an edge case where a player has deliberately gimped his ability to do his primary job to give himself a higher AC. The reason Avengers get a bigger AC boost when wearing light armor is simply because they aren't expected to max out their Dexterity. Even then, at most levels the difference is going to be miniscule: compare a 1st-level ACvenger (10 base + 3 hide armor + 3 armor of faith + 5 Dex = 21) to a paladin (10 base + 8 plate armor + 2 heavy shield = 20). Now remember that the paladin expended exactly _zero_ resources to get that AC, while the avenger has blown both of his starting feats _and_ 3/4 of his starting attribute points on an ability score that doesn't benefit him at all.

Also, bear in mind that the _only_ light-armor wearers who can match or even slightly exceed heavy armor ACs are those who have some form of innate magical defense: swordmage warding, armor of faith, etc. Show me a rogue who can, without magic, equal the AC of a fighter without magic, and then maybe there'll be a verisimilitude problem.


----------



## Herschel (Jun 19, 2009)

Nail said:


> Should a *hero* in heavy plate armor be damaged more easily than someone in light armor?




Admin here. I've removed your excessively rude comment. You know, it's okay if people don't agree with you; even then, you have a responsibility to be polite if you're going to be posting here. That goes for everyone, of course.

I now return you to the post. Please email me if this is at all unclear.  ~ Piratecat

The crux of the situation is in the statement above. You miss the very basic premise of the point of AC in the debate: You need to be hit in a way that actually hurts you to be damaged. AC is not avoiding damage as such, it's avoiding being hit with a damaging blow. Armor deflects/lessens blows that connect with the person. Mobility avoids the actual hits on the person. Both lessen damage to the person attacked in differing ways but can be equally or more effective, depending on circumstances.

Terrain, tactics and mobility can make up for a lack of heavy armor in some cases. As a game mechanic, they streamlined the whole thing in a very solid way. Do we really need weapon vs. armor charts back? Or a chart adjusting attack bonus based on the opponent's Dex? I sure don't.

It also includes magic. The Avenger power is called "Shield of Faith", not "Jimmy's invisible, non-held, adamantine great shield". The swordmage power is a magical warding which is improved if the swordmage has a hand free to maintain the stronger shielding. This is a heck of a lot easier than the charts listed above.


----------



## Flipguarder (Jun 19, 2009)

Herschel said:


> Original quote removed by admin.




Just a point of order, that's unnecessarily harsh.


----------



## keterys (Jun 19, 2009)

Flipguarder said:


> When the guy next to you has a divine aura that comes directly from their god




Poor Paladin. Weighted down by plate armor and a heavy shield (and -4 check penalty) and he's worse off than the Avenger.

His god doesn't love him as much, I guess.


----------



## Flipguarder (Jun 19, 2009)

He trusts in material products such as plate and doesn't trust his god to protect him. So yes a paladin's god doesn't protect them as much.


----------



## keterys (Jun 19, 2009)

So... if a paladin takes off his armor and shield, will his AC go up?


----------



## Flipguarder (Jun 19, 2009)

keterys said:


> So... if a paladin takes off his armor and shield, will his AC go up?




Nah, see the fact that he has trained to use plate is the lack of faith, not necessarily the wearing of it.


----------



## coyote6 (Jun 19, 2009)

keterys said:


> So... if a paladin takes off his armor and shield, will his AC go up?




What, you think the gods are that easy? You prance around for years, going on and on about how much you love your deity, they're the best, your going to the temple right now, everyone will love how swell I look in this armor, isn't it great, those gnoll arrows just bounce right off, armor rules!, ooh look, that armor in the window, it's even better, I'll take this big pile of money I have and buy it, now i'm even cooler, and what was I doing? Let's go fight some ogres, they'll never hurt me in my new armor!

You think a little, "Oh, sorry, I'll take it off. Gimme those powers, sweetie" is enough? Oh, no, your deity's going to be all, "Let's see how _you_ like being ignored and mistreated." So get used to being smacked around by every minion with an attack bonus, buddy, 'cause you're going to be working that one off for _levels_. If you're lucky, maybe the divine one will forgive you after you retrain...


----------



## keterys (Jun 19, 2009)

Hmm. What if you just never wear armor at all and always trusted in your god to protect you? 

Tangent: Does an Avenger's AC go up if it doesn't wear _clothes_? (I can't remember where now, but I remember some system where women got more 'AC' based on how little clothes they wore. Yeeeaaaah.)


----------



## Piratecat (Jun 19, 2009)

Is this like Elan being invisible when he isn't wearing any clothes?


----------



## keterys (Jun 19, 2009)

Exactly!


----------



## Dan'L (Jun 19, 2009)

keterys said:


> Tangent: Does an Avenger's AC go up if it doesn't wear _clothes_?




Nah, a Naturalist would likely be a Primal class, not Divine.

More on-topic:  I (relatively) recently had a Fighter character die, and replaced it with an Avenger.  Considering that it took a feat and magic armor to get my AC equal to what the Fighter had with only mundane equipment, I don't think it's too out-powered to have the Avenger's AC so high.

Also, with various effects that cause dismay and destruction among the bad guys if they hit/attack me, I haven't really been the target of choice enough for the AC to come into play very much at all.

-Dan'L


----------



## Ryujin (Jun 19, 2009)

Dan'L said:


> Nah, a Naturalist would likely be a Primal class, not Divine.




Ah, so they got temp hits instead. Explains why my idiot ancestors took off their clothes and painted themselves blue, before taking up the axe.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Jun 19, 2009)

keterys said:


> (I can't remember where now, but I remember some system where women got more 'AC' based on how little clothes they wore. Yeeeaaaah.)




GURPS had "Bulletproof Nudity" to represent scantily-clad people not getting shot off.  It was meant as a goofy cinematic *optional* rule, though.

Brad


----------



## Herschel (Jun 19, 2009)

Piratecat said:


> Is this like Elan being invisible when he isn't wearing any clothes?




LoL, that reminded me of Kel Williams in "Mystery Men" for some reason too.


----------



## Flipguarder (Jun 20, 2009)

keterys said:


> Hmm. What if you just never wear armor at all and always trusted in your god to protect you?
> 
> Tangent: Does an Avenger's AC go up if it doesn't wear _clothes_? (I can't remember where now, but I remember some system where women got more 'AC' based on how little clothes they wore. Yeeeaaaah.)




If the Paladin decides that he trusts his god to protect him from damage, then he forgets the feats for proficiency with plate, chain, scale, hide armor and shields and gets a static +3 class bonus to ac. Im 100% ok with this.


----------



## Herschel (Jun 20, 2009)

Flipguarder said:


> If the Paladin decides that he trusts his god to protect him from damage, then he forgets the feats for proficiency with plate, chain, scale, hide armor and shields and gets a static +3 class bonus to ac. Im 100% ok with this.





And if you wanted to do it "within the rules" a hybrid Paladin/Avenger taking the Armor of Faith feat and picking Paladin powers would work too. 

That said, your way is MUCH more streamlined.


----------



## keterys (Jun 20, 2009)

Sadly, that paladin would have a pretty awful AC most likely. That or he'd be an awful paladin in some other facet, since he can't afford Int or Dex. 

It's okay, though, I think most paladins realize that their gods don't really love them all that much. Well, maybe after Divine Power.


----------



## Particle_Man (Jun 20, 2009)

Fluff-wise, it is interesting that Avengers and Invokers seem to come from earlier time-periods, and clerics and paladins are the more recent divine servants.


----------



## Nail (Jun 20, 2009)

Particle_Man said:


> Fluff-wise, it is interesting that Avengers and Invokers seem to come from earlier time-periods, and clerics and paladins are the more recent divine servants.



Perhaps the gods realized they were giving away too much AC goodness, but the earlier-time period classes had air-tight contracts, and so couldn't be voided.  Later clients (Clerics, Paladins) had poorer contracts, as the gods had learned their lesson and hired better contract lawyers.


----------



## rainsinger (Jun 20, 2009)

Realized someone pretty much said the same thing as me... pfft.


----------



## Tai (Jun 23, 2009)

There's been a lot of talk about whether light armour should be better than heavy armour, but as far as I can tell it isn't actually any better.

At level 1, heavy armour has 5 points of AC on light, which is cancelled out if you build a DEX/INT spec'd character. When you level up, the extra bonuses you get from magic heavy armour cancels the points you get from extra stats. So if you spend on DEX or INT as heavily as it's possible to do (ignoring things like epic destinies), then you're at the same level as someone tooling around in heavy armour. 

Yes, class features can bring that up for light armoured characters, but as far as I'm aware, most of those either come on characters with restrictions (ie you can't use a shield), or on characters that don't get armour at all as standard... And most heavy characters get shield proficiencies too, which gives them easy access to more AC.


----------



## Particle_Man (Jun 23, 2009)

Tank:

+6 Godplate +20, heavy shield +2.  Total +22.

Avenger:

class ability +3.  Feat to improve class ability +3.  +6 Hide +11.  Total so far +17.

So once Dex or Int hits 20 they are equal.  Once Dex or Int hits 22 the Avenger is better.  Admittedly, the Avenger does pay a heavy "feat tax".


----------



## Kordeth (Jun 23, 2009)

Particle_Man said:


> Tank:
> 
> +6 Godplate +20, heavy shield +2.  Total +22.
> 
> ...




And that's really an edge case, too--Avengers really don't get much out of having a very high Dex/Int, so not only is he paying a heavy feat tax, he's going to be sub-optimal as a striker. And IMHO, at least, being good at your job in 4E is _way_ more important than being a couple of points harder to hit.


----------



## Tai (Jun 23, 2009)

I'm talking about just armour. The extra AC for masterwork heavy armour crop up at the same rate as it's possible to buy up dex, so a ranger, say, has the same AC with hide and dex 20 as a paladin does with plate (and that's without counting a shield, which most heavy classes get to start with). As they level up, if they keep spending their stats on dex, that will keep them on a par with the paladin's masterwork plate - and the paladin doesn't have to invest in any stats for that. Yes, some light classes get AC bonuses, but most of them start with cloth, and have to drop two feats (and have stats they're unlikely to want) to get to hide. 

So yes, the Avenger can manage a very high AC, if he wants to chuck a whole bunch of feats in the bin. I think you'd be better off with a Swordmage, who can manage an AC that's almost as impressive, at least at heroic tier, without compromising their attack stat.


----------



## Particle_Man (Jun 23, 2009)

Kordeth said:


> And that's really an edge case, too--Avengers really don't get much out of having a very high Dex/Int, so not only is he paying a heavy feat tax, he's going to be sub-optimal as a striker. And IMHO, at least, being good at your job in 4E is _way_ more important than being a couple of points harder to hit.




Well Dex and Int do inform those Encounter Powers Avengers get, as well as AC, Reflex defense, and (in Dex's case) initiative.  Its not like Strength or Charisma does much for them (except for the Fort defense and some feat prerequisites).  Hit Points are nice, I guess.  Wisdom is where the hitting and damage comes from, so that should be high (although, curiously, Avengers more than other classes can let their primary stat slide a little, relying on their class ability to hit more often with a lower stat than other classes with a primary stat that low).

Personally, I would even give up on Str, just go up to Leather.  You still have a nice AC.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 24, 2009)

Kordeth said:


> And IMHO, at least, being good at your job in 4E is _way_ more important than being a couple of points harder to hit.




I would disagree. Sometimes there can be good reasons to "branch out". You might deal less damage, but to compensate, you can last longer. 

Of course, if you want your combats to be fast, extra damage and extra to hits are more important than surviving a little longer.


----------



## Flipguarder (Jun 24, 2009)

it REALLY depends on your party make-up. A standard party I would just say forgo the wierd stuff and be the striker you're supposed to be. If you have a warlock and a cleric and nobody else, then high ac might be a decent idea.


----------



## Nail (Jun 24, 2009)

Flipguarder said:


> it REALLY depends on your party make-up. A standard party I would just say forgo the wierd stuff and be the striker you're supposed to be.



Agreed.

Tangent: has anyone done a striker-heavy party, and then done a striker-light party?  Difference in combat lengths?


----------



## DrSpunj (Jun 25, 2009)

That'd be worth forking, IMO, *Nail*. I'd be curious too and very few are going to see this unless it's its own thread. Would you like to do the honors?


----------



## Herschel (Jun 25, 2009)

Nail said:


> Agreed.
> 
> Tangent: has anyone done a striker-heavy party, and then done a striker-light party? Difference in combat lengths?




I've only played striker-heavy a couple of times but have played striker-light pretty often. Combat lengths haven't made much different. Striker-heavy a little quicker vs. solos maybe, but in general the other party did better, especially against larger numbers of foes.


----------

