PDA

View Full Version : Seeking info for my 3.5 rework.



zlefin
2011-12-08, 09:35 PM
As many others have before; i'm building a set of my own reworks to 3.5; There's some info i'd like to get from the experts on balance in here.

I'm basing my work off the 3.5 srd; as I think too many splatbooks is part of the problem (and too much to balance).

I have little experience with level 10+ play; so i'm relying more on what i've read about that, and some questions.
Q1: is caster growth actually quadratic? As opposed to being x^3, or some other exponent or more complicated formula.
Q2: How well does fighting type units damage stack up late game?
Q3: Would trying to make all classes tier 2 be too powerful a point to aim for?
what about tier 3?
Q4: How often are you denied your dodge bonuses in high level combat?
Q5: How willing are people to accept fighter types going above the limitations of an elite human? (comparative example: Rurouni Kenshin, very elite, but still close to human limits; and Mihawk from One Piece, able to chop full sized ships in half with one stroke) It always seemed to me that part of the problem was holding fighters to human limits when mages get to do so much more.
Q6: how powerful are the abilities Evasion and Improved Evasion relative to feats? To put another way, how many feats would it take to equal the boost from having Evasion? in either 3.5 or PF (as the 3.5 core feats are mostly terrible).

thank you for your time and answers
Zlefin :)

bobthe6th
2011-12-08, 09:47 PM
Q3: well... giving SoD to every one might be fun... but really, with 2+ you lose all hope at avoiding breakage. you can try to contain it, but it really won't work. T3 is much more fun, as it lets people feel like they matter. heck T4 might be fun for makeing people think...

Hyudra
2011-12-08, 11:09 PM
Q5

Depends on the individual.

I would strongly, strongly suggest that you establish a norm, a standard to go by. I think a huge part of the problem in 3.5 balance is that people are expecting, for example, the likes of Aragorn or Conan to be 15th to 20th level PCs.

When in reality, they're probably closer to 5th or 6th level.

So people set a bar at a certain height, and then things fall apart.

Personally, I think a near-epic level warrior-type should be breaking the laws of physics and doing earthshattering attacks. Gilgamesh slashed a mountain in half. You cited Mihawk as slashing a ship in two. Putting these guys in a group with a mage that can summon huge monsters and teleport across a continent is fair & balanced. If people don't want to be in a group at that power level, if they think it's over the top, then they should be made aware that what they really want is to play in a lower level game.

In much the same vein, CR needs a really, major, huge looking at. I think this is one of the areas where PF totally dropped the ball.

Seerow
2011-12-08, 11:17 PM
If you don't have experience with high level play 1) Don't try to include it in your game. 2) Don't aim for a tier 1 or 2 balance point.

Design what you know, not what you think other people will like. If it's good, people will come. If it's not good, it wouldn't have been any better with you trying to support something that you legitimately have no idea how it works.

T.G. Oskar
2011-12-08, 11:20 PM
AQ1: is caster growth actually quadratic? As opposed to being x^3, or some other exponent or more complicated formula.

x^3 = cubic, or "to the cubic power". IIRC.

Thing is, the term is to define how the classes grow. A Fighter gets new feats every two levels, and feats don't progress unless you take a feat chain and the next feat in the list. Hence, "linear"; one feat takes you to the next.

Wizards and other spellcasters work differently. Every new spell level they get, they get a plethora of new spells, but their old spells STILL grow in power. For example: at 3rd level, a wizard gets Scorching Ray, but its Magic Missile and Shocking Grasp spells increase in damage; Grease and Color Spray are still powerful but you also get Glitterdust and Web. Hence, they grow in a "quadratic" form: not only you gain an increase in power from better spells, but also from your old spells growing.

A way to solve the "fighters grow linearly" problem is to make feats scale, but ONLY for martial classes. Thus, Dodge grants a +1 dodge bonus at 1st level, but a +2 at 5th, and so on. Most of these increases become easily boring after a few levels, and most people recommend that scaling feats are both reasonable in terms of growth and fun to use. For example, Mobility would work better if at latter levels it granted some form of concealment while moving, as it makes choosing one feat a better return at the long run. Thus, your old feats improve, and you gain new feats that also grow. That doesn't make it "quadratic" but it makes it adopt a different shape (I say logarithmic, as you stop growing to an extent).


Q2: How well does fighting type units damage stack up late game?

If the group is only devoted to finish battles, fighters with high damage potential rule (even if they get boring). Warblades, crusaders and swordsages get a lot of mileage, and gishes get even more mileage. The Tier system should serve as a measure of the "fuel" of the classes; Tier 3 holds well up to 20th level, Tier 4 starts losing steam at 10th level and Tier 5 loses steam at 5th or lower unless they get heavily optimized.


Q3: Would trying to make all classes tier 2 be too powerful a point to aim for?
what about tier 3?

Most people aim for tier 3 because it's the most fun to play. You get enough options but not broken or extremely precise options. Tier 2 is near impossible unless you give every single class an utility belt like that of Batman, and because most would seem pretty similar (spells or bust, or make maneuvers/vestiges/mysteries/utterances/auras/etc. work with everything), it would make playing any class boring. Remember, and this is mentioned in the Tier system thread: Tiers measure versatility, not power. A Wizard isn't powerful because it can end battles in one round; it is powerful because it can end battles in one round, trivialize challenges, bring better Fighters than the Fighter, scout better than the Ranger, disarm stuff and open locks better than the Rogue, buff everyone as the Cleric, trivialize social encounters, AND craft the magic items. When a Fighter can end battles in one round, be a monster in social skills, disarm traps better than the Rogue without "I smash the trap!", AND forge magic items...it MAY reach Tier 3.


Q4: How often are you denied your dodge bonuses in high level combat?

That depends on the type of dodge. However, it's not that much: dodge bonuses are formidable at latter levels, as well as deflection AC. Though, some creatures will make AC meaningless in any case; non-AC defenses (saving throws, damage reduction, miss chances) are actually better. A 20% miss chance is much better than 4 points of AC because it applies separately and uses a different dice.


Q5: How willing are people to accept fighter types going above the limitations of an elite human? (comparative example: Rurouni Kenshin, very elite, but still close to human limits; and Mihawk from One Piece, able to chop full sized ships in half with one stroke) It always seemed to me that part of the problem was holding fighters to human limits when mages get to do so much more.

The problem is a tad more complex (less how mages break limits and more how they can dabble in the roles of others and do them better) than you assume. That said, it all depends how you pull it out. There's so much you can do with extraordinary actions before you start wondering whether they're actually supernatural, and there is very little difference between supernatural abilities and what spells can do. Diamond Mind maneuvers (and a bit of Tiger Claw) define pretty well what the Hiten Mitsurugi-ryuu can pull, and most of the Devil Fruits from One Piece work essentially as templates, whereas the "absurdly sharp swords" probably work as an extension of Mountain Hammer with a deceptively large weapon. Pushing the limits of extraordinary and make it believable is a challenge on its own.


Q6: how powerful are the abilities Evasion and Improved Evasion relative to feats? To put another way, how many feats would it take to equal the boost from having Evasion? in either 3.5 or PF (as the 3.5 core feats are mostly terrible).

thank you for your time and answers
Zlefin :)

One. Really, one feat is enough. Imp. Evasion could make it as two, but it works best as a scaling feat version of Evasion. To make it a bit more blunt, it can be replaced with 25,000 gp (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/rings.htm#evasion), and for what it works energy resistance and some spells can definitely reduce some of its effectiveness. It only works with people with high Reflex, in any case. Mettle is slightly worse even if it affects two things, because Fortitude partial or Will half are less common than Reflex half.

Hyudra
2011-12-08, 11:22 PM
I might suggest just designing the rules for 1-10 to start with, then if you get that done, you like the feedback, and you're comfortable with the foundation you've built, you could do 11-15, then 16-20.

erikun
2011-12-09, 12:06 AM
Q1: is caster growth actually quadratic? As opposed to being x^3, or some other exponent or more complicated formula.
"Linear Fighters, Quadratic Wizards" is meant to highlight the relation between the two classes, not specify the exact relation of power. Fighters gain power linerally, typically with bonuses adding to existing bonuses. Wizards gain power exponentially, not only gaining more spell slots of existing spells but also newer, more power spells.

A Wizard four levels higher will not only have around twice as many spell slots of existing spells known, but will also have two new spell levels of slots to work with. This is in addition to additional new spells of the same level and more powerful spells from two higher levels. Conversely, the Fighter will have +4 to hit and two new feats that are roughly as powerful as they were at the start of the game - a linear addition of abilities.



Q2: How well does fighting type units damage stack up late game?
Poorly. 20 CON translates into +100 HP at 20th level, easily equaling the natural HP the Fighter gains through levels. Monsters can have 40 CON or 50 CON, granting hundreds of HP that requires high optimization to chop through.


Q3: Would trying to make all classes tier 2 be too powerful a point to aim for?
what about tier 3?
This is entirely up to you. Some people like 3.5e because you can select your "tier" for different playstyles, so trying to make everything the same tier wouldn't necessarily be a good thing.

Note that if trying to make everything Tier 2 (equal to a sorcerer), some people may question how a Fighter or Barbarian class fits such abilities. Tier 3 is generally considered a balance point because "mundane" classes can still have rather mundane abilities and perform at that level.


Q4: How often are you denied your dodge bonuses in high level combat?
I'll leave this up to others, although a lot of higher level attacks will hit something other than AC, and miss chance gets used a lot more.


Q5: How willing are people to accept fighter types going above the limitations of an elite human? (comparative example: Rurouni Kenshin, very elite, but still close to human limits; and Mihawk from One Piece, able to chop full sized ships in half with one stroke) It always seemed to me that part of the problem was holding fighters to human limits when mages get to do so much more.
This is purely up to individual opinion, but Warblades, Swordsages, and various Barbarians are generally well accepted without complaint.

It should also be mentioned that exactly what abilities you mean will influence how certain people accept the idea. If the game setting implies that mortals can obtain the powers of the gods through valor and hard work, then high-level characters acting like Herakles will likely be more accepted. If nothing like that is present, then people ripping apart ships will likely be far less so.

Also note that the highest tier "mundane" characters, and their abilities, are nothing along those lines. Being able to detect invisible opponent, attacking by touch AC, or granting bonus actions to allies are all very good and generally accepted without slicing giant oaks in half.


Q6: how powerful are the abilities Evasion and Improved Evasion relative to feats? To put another way, how many feats would it take to equal the boost from having Evasion? in either 3.5 or PF (as the 3.5 core feats are mostly terrible).
Hard to say, because feats can vary so wildly. Evasion is far better than Endurance, but not nearly as good as Summon Elemental or Leadership.

I would probably say they are worth one feat, in general.

Jeraa
2011-12-09, 12:25 AM
Q5: How willing are people to accept fighter types going above the limitations of an elite human? (comparative example: Rurouni Kenshin, very elite, but still close to human limits; and Mihawk from One Piece, able to chop full sized ships in half with one stroke) It always seemed to me that part of the problem was holding fighters to human limits when mages get to do so much more.

It depends. Some people have no problem with fighter types doing almost-magical things, while others want their mundane fighters to stay mundane. It also depends on level. A level 5 fighter should be very close to human limitations, while a 20th level fighter is really just a small step from demi-godhood and should be able to break human limitations easily.


Q6: how powerful are the abilities Evasion and Improved Evasion relative to feats? To put another way, how many feats would it take to equal the boost from having Evasion? in either 3.5 or PF (as the 3.5 core feats are mostly terrible).

Well, Unearthed Arcana has rules for generic classes, where you can buy class abilities with feats. That gives evasion as a feat, and improved evasion as a 2nd feat.

Yitzi
2011-12-09, 07:41 AM
Remember, and this is mentioned in the Tier system thread: Tiers measure versatility, not power.

Not quite; a tier 2 can be less versatile than a tier 3. They actually measure both.


A 20% miss chance is much better than 4 points of AC because it applies separately and uses a different dice.

Actually, that's why it's inferior unless dealing with someone who already hits on 5 or misses on a 19. A 20% miss chance is 4 points out of 20 to miss; 4 points of AC is 4 points out of his existing number of numbers that hit (which is of course a maximum of 19).


granting hundreds of HP that requires high optimization to chop through.

Not really; hundreds of HP doesn't take high optimization to chop through if you're willing to take a few rounds.


I'll leave this up to others, although a lot of higher level attacks will hit something other than AC, and miss chance gets used a lot more.

This is more true for high-splatbook play; in low-splatbook play the only way to hit something other than AC are spells, special abilities, and combat maneuvers. (Most monsters have some sort of special ability at those levels, but they tend to be secondary, rather than primary, attacks.)

gkathellar
2011-12-09, 09:46 AM
Actually, that's why it's inferior unless dealing with someone who already hits on 5 or misses on a 19. A 20% miss chance is 4 points out of 20 to miss; 4 points of AC is 4 points out of his existing number of numbers that hit (which is of course a maximum of 19).

The issue is that fighters have a solid mechanism for overcoming AC built right into their class: attack bonus. They buff up their attack bonuses in order to hit reliably.

Miss chance, on the other hand, ignores the existing mechanism. It functions on a different spectrum, and so planning for one doesn't help you plan for the other. With the presence of miss chances, fighters have to compensate for two different mechanical variables, dividing their total resources and producing less focused effects.


Not really; hundreds of HP doesn't take high optimization to chop through if you're willing to take a few rounds.

Except that many of those monsters with hundreds of HP have other supportive defensive mechanics as well: DR, fast healing/regeneration, miss chances, you name it. And many can hit as hard as or much harder than an less optimized player character, who will also typically lack those strong defensive mechanics (or have them at inadequate levels).

Every round you take is a chance for the walking tank to flatten you.

Yitzi
2011-12-09, 10:07 AM
The issue is that fighters have a solid mechanism for overcoming AC built right into their class: attack bonus. They buff up their attack bonuses in order to hit reliably.

Not sure if you were aware, but AC can be buffed up a lot more easily than attack bonus.


With the presence of miss chances, fighters have to compensate for two different mechanical variables, dividing their total resources and producing less focused effects.

Or they can simply accept that they'll fail to hit 20% of the time; someone who focuses even a bit on AC can easily get far better than that for 4 points of AC anyway.

Of course, in a rocket tag game things are different, but those are extremely difficult to balance, extremely volatile, and often mean that some party members don't have a chance to contribute even in the encounter type they're supposed to be best at, so I'd say that any rework should start off by ensuring that things don't devolve into rocket tag.


Except that many of those monsters with hundreds of HP have other supportive defensive mechanics as well: DR, fast healing/regeneration, miss chances, you name it.

Miss chances just reduce damage per round, as does DR if you've got Power Attack. (If you don't, you'll have to rely on the casters more than usual that fight unless you can bypass the DR). Fast healing and regeneration are the only ones that could do more than simply make the fight take an extra round or so, but they tend to be low enough in comparison to the monster's total hit points that they won't be an issue for a battle that would otherwise take less than 10 rounds.


And many can hit as hard as or much harder than an less optimized player character, who will also typically lack those strong defensive mechanics (or have them at inadequate levels).

Player characters can get the advantage of buffs, though (either from potions or party spellcasters), will often have higher AC, and are ganging up 4v1 against anything of their own CR. Of course, if the PC is sufficiently unoptimized then an easier fight will be needed, but that's an unsolvable problem if you want to allow optimization and not have it ruin the game in the other direction.


Every round you take is a chance for the walking tank to flatten you.

And if it only hits 30% of the time and only does 40% of your HP in damage per hit, it's usually ok to take 5 rounds (when it gets a few lucky hits early on, that's when you withdraw and let the rest of the party finish it).

Zeta Kai
2011-12-09, 10:33 AM
If you don't have experience with high level play 1) Don't try to include it in your game. 2) Don't aim for a tier 1 or 2 balance point.

Design what you know, not what you think other people will like. If it's good, people will come. If it's not good, it wouldn't have been any better with you trying to support something that you legitimately have no idea how it works.

I agree wholeheartedly. If you don't understand the system, you cannot fix the system. You will either fix the wrong things, fix things wrongly, or likely both. If you're going to do this at all, then I'd recommend Hyudra's sentiment: make a good fix for low-level play, get feedback, & tweak it to a shiny polish. Only then will you understand the issues with the system enough to tackle mid-level & high-level play.

Honestly, you're better off not wasting your time. It will take a ton of time & labor to fix the system, & others have tried before you. Fax Celestis's D20r, Paizo's Pathfinder, & the new Legend system from RoC are all based on the idea of fixing the d20 system; each has taken years to complete. I'm not sure if you even understand the sheer volume of work needed to fix the core system. Every rule, every sentence, every table, & every single number needs to be looked at, with a keen eye for how it fits in with everything else. This is something that, by your own admission, you do not have. Perhaps it would be best if you made a system of your own, one that is not based directly on the d20 system. That way, you'd be starting fresh, without the baggage of 10 years of revisions, opinions, & errata, & you would be the one who understands your system the best.

In conclusion, if you should probably not do this, but if you are going to do so anyway, then start small. Fix the feats, or rebuild the Fighter class, or adjust the grappling rules. Then assess what you've done, & what you'd like to do, & how that all fits together. Remember that fixing one thing can break something else, & that exploits can often turn up where you least expect them. There is no perfect solution for everyone's play style, so you're better off aiming for a specific way of doing things, & stick with that no matter what. You won't please everybody, but you just might end up pleasing yourself. Good luck.

arguskos
2011-12-09, 11:01 AM
In conclusion, if you should probably not do this, but if you are going to do so anyway, then start small. Fix the feats, or rebuild the Fighter class, or adjust the grappling rules. Then assess what you've done, & what you'd like to do, & how that all fits together. Remember that fixing one thing can break something else, & that exploits can often turn up where you least expect them. There is no perfect solution for everyone's play style, so you're better off aiming for a specific way of doing things, & stick with that no matter what. You won't please everybody, but you just might end up pleasing yourself. Good luck.
This is wisdom. Some friends of mine are working on a TCG that's actually coming together well, and they've roped me into it (over a decade of competitive Magic play gives me an understanding of TCGs they just don't have), and I can tell ya, you have to watch out for breaks EVERYWHERE.

It's best to just make your own system and call it a day. Trying to make something with the baggage and assumptions of a prior system is nigh-impossible without such an incredible understanding of the system that it nearly boggles the mind. IMO, no one really has that kind of an understanding without doing and failing for years at a time.

People like Doc Roc, Fax, and the Paizo guys, all of whom have spearheaded major revisions, they all have been doing this at all levels of design since the game was released. If you wish to become one of them, that's fine, but you need experience that, by admission, you lack. Start small, make a few things here and there, make it unique and distinct, then work on building up from there. It's a years long process and you best be prepared to fail a lot, because you will (we all did, it's nothing personal :smallwink:).

Good luck, in any case, and welcome to the brew.

T.G. Oskar
2011-12-09, 01:06 PM
Not quite; a tier 2 can be less versatile than a tier 3. They actually measure both.

It's more "action economy + versatility = power", from what I can see. But that's because versatility factors into power quite nicely.

For example: the difference between a sorcerer and a wizard? A cleric, a druid and a favored soul? Between actual spellcasters and users of psionics? As described, the Tiers factor out of the box what exactly can you pull off, instead of what you can pull off with any level of optimization. The Tier 1 description states both things: that they can end battles in one round, and that they can do pretty much everything (not exactly as I say it, tho), but if you read it as it's stated, the former is only an application of the latter.


Actually, that's why it's inferior unless dealing with someone who already hits on 5 or misses on a 19. A 20% miss chance is 4 points out of 20 to miss; 4 points of AC is 4 points out of his existing number of numbers that hit (which is of course a maximum of 19).

Uh...it doesn't work that way. The best way to put it is like this: with a 50% to hit (you hit on a 11 or higher on a d20 roll), a +4 bonus to AC is a direct 20% increase to your defense. A 20% miss chance is factored separately, if you enter that hit range, you still have a 20% chance to fail the attack because of the miss chance (unless the attack bypasses concealment).

In that description, a +4 bonus to attack rolls negates that 20% benefit of not getting hit from the AC, whereas the 20% miss chance will apply regardless of the bonus to AC (what it does, though, is that the earlier chance to prevent being hit increases, but you find a further stumbling block). Because it factors separately, it is superior, because you can find ways to increase your AC and maximize that AC increase, making you harder to hit. There are less ways to bypass concealment than to get a bonus to attack rolls, which should mean something.

Consider, then, what happens when creatures with high HD start getting more bonuses to attack than what you could get from AC. Consider, as well, what happens when your chances to get AC become limited: for example, having low Dex, using heavy armor without mithral, not wearing a shield. High AC usually requires having good scores and a lot of small items granting various different bonuses to AC; if you can replace a Ring of Protection +3 with a Ring of Protection +1 and maybe a Ring of Blinking, then you waste 3k more gold but you maximize the return. That doesn't mean you'll always have the right amount of GP or that you'll easily find Rings of Protection +3 and Rings of Blinking, or that you'll have a surplus of 3k GP to replace one thing for another, certainly. It's just the same as getting an Amulet of Natural Armor +1 and a Ring of Protection +1 instead of a Ring of Protection +2; same AC, perhaps the loss of 1 to touch AC, but in the end you'll get the same results.

And, of course, miss chances apply to many more things. If the enemy hits touch AC? Miss chance applies, unless the enemy can bypass concealment or miss chances as well. Diminishing returns with attack bonus? Miss chances become slightly better.

It's also the difference between +1 extra AC and +1 to all saving throws, because the latter applies to things that AC can't handle. That's the importance of non-AC defenses, because there will be times when AC can be bypassed, ignored, or downright unnecessary, whereas stuff like saving throws, miss chances, DR, resistances and whatnot become more important. That was the idea behind the recommendation: if you can get the chance for non-AC defenses, use them, because later on you can reinforce your AC and still get something better.

Mulletmanalive
2011-12-09, 01:13 PM
Going to just echo the above sentiments.

If you want to use the CORE d20 rules, i.e. the dice mechanism, cool.

Trying to retain anything else, or at least more than one thing, is going to become chaos.

My own "revision" wasn't ever intended like that, but after I'd pulled out everything I didn't like in 3.5, all I was left with was the Fighter class and the dice mechanics. Beyond that, it was actually far quicker building everything else around what i'd got left than trying to "revise" anything.

I got the bulk of it done in about 8 weeks, but this was the 3rd or 4th system I'd designed by this point and I had very clear design goals [not "better game" but "risky, cover intensive, class scaling Victorian gunslingery"], which, at present, you don't seem to have.

Get some goals, know what you're working towards and then you can actually start on your way.

zlefin
2011-12-09, 01:27 PM
thank you for all the comments, and more are still welcome.
As to the difficulty - I am well aware of how hard of a problem it is to solve, and how extensive. But it is the process itself of solving it that I find most interesting, rather than the utility of the solution.
In this it is much like solving a very difficult puzzle; so working on a hard puzzle is just fine.

I'm already developing some ideas for how to address the overall balance issues; and yes, as expected they'll break alot of other things, or at least require tweaking of them; but once you address core problems, then the others become more issues of adjusting numbers rather than of fundamental changes.

My objective is straightforward to describe: balance, between the classes; a tall goal, and i don' t expect to achieve it; but if I can get the casters all down to tier 2; and the fighters mostly all up to tier 3; then that'd be close enough.

Yitzi
2011-12-09, 02:00 PM
It's more "action economy + versatility = power", from what I can see. But that's because versatility factors into power quite nicely.

As does action economy. But so does simply having the ability to kill someone with a single spell.


For example: the difference between a sorcerer and a wizard? A cleric, a druid and a favored soul? Between actual spellcasters and users of psionics?

The tier 1/tier 2 distinction is all about versatility, no question about that. But the tier 2/tier 3 distinction, or even the tier 2/tier 4 distinction, is not.


Uh...it doesn't work that way. The best way to put it is like this: with a 50% to hit (you hit on a 11 or higher on a d20 roll), a +4 bonus to AC is a direct 20% increase to your defense.

No, it's a 66% increase to your defense. Before you would get hit 10 times out of 20, now you get hit 6 times out of 20. That's a ratio of 5 to 3, or 166%. (A 20% miss chance is similarly actually a 25% increase to your defense, as you're surviving 25% more attacks.)


In that description, a +4 bonus to attack rolls negates that 20% benefit of not getting hit from the AC, whereas the 20% miss chance will apply regardless of the bonus to AC (what it does, though, is that the earlier chance to prevent being hit increases, but you find a further stumbling block).

That's just a question of how you do the accounting, whether something that would miss because of both AC and miss chance counts on AC or miss chance. The right way to calculate it is the actual chance of getting hit.


Because it factors separately, it is superior, because you can find ways to increase your AC and maximize that AC increase, making you harder to hit.

Wait, and the fact that you can boost your AC is supposed to make hit chance superior?


There are less ways to bypass concealment than to get a bonus to attack rolls, which should mean something.

Not really; barring rocket tag, the goal isn't to bypass everything that might make you miss, but rather to maximize your actual chance of hitting and minimize the chance of getting hit. To that end, the effective value of one point of AC is equal to 100% divided by (20+enemy attack-your current AC), or 0 if the enemy already needs a 20 to hit or will need a 1 to miss even with the AC. Barring the latter case, that means one point of AC is always worth more than a 5% miss chance.


Consider, then, what happens when creatures with high HD start getting more bonuses to attack than what you could get from AC.

Of course if that happens than miss chances will be superior unless they like to power attack. But barring the Tarrasque, that doesn't really happen unless you're neglecting AC.


Consider, as well, what happens when your chances to get AC become limited: for example, having low Dex, using heavy armor without mithral, not wearing a shield.

Well yeah, then you'll have relatively low AC unless you grab Combat Expertise. But at higher levels there is absolutely no excuse for a fighter-type to not grab an animated shield to boost his AC (unless he already has a shield); a +1 animated heavy shield gives +3 AC for 9k, and a +5 animated shield gives +7 AC for 49k. (It costs a lot more than 49k to boost your attack roll by 7.)

Also, at high levels getting mithral armor and gloves of DEX are quite worth the investment.


High AC usually requires having good scores and a lot of small items granting various different bonuses to AC; if you can replace a Ring of Protection +3 with a Ring of Protection +1 and maybe a Ring of Blinking, then you waste 3k more gold but you maximize the return.

That's just because the Ring of Blinking is underpriced (and even so, at 27k it costs far more than the ring of protection +3); by the standard rules, the cost should be 7(CL)X3(SL)X2000(continuous item)X4(spell with duration measured in rounds)=168,000. Unless it only works for 7 rounds before needing to be activated again; that would mean that it costs 7(CL)X3(SL)X1800=37,800 (so it's still underpriced, but not so obscenely so), and requires you to spend a standard action activating it (at which point it only lasts 7 rounds).

But yes, ring of blinking is extremely good. That's a statement about the item, not about miss chance in general. (An item giving +10 to AC, for instance, would be far better than the ring of blinking almost all the time.)


It's just the same as getting an Amulet of Natural Armor +1 and a Ring of Protection +1 instead of a Ring of Protection +2; same AC, perhaps the loss of 1 to touch AC, but in the end you'll get the same results.

And the natural armor and ring are cheaper. So yes, if you can add in miss chance it's definitely nice at the right point. (For a ring of blinking, that point is just before upgrading your armor/shield from +3 to +4.) But it's not a replacement for AC, more an addition to it.


And, of course, miss chances apply to many more things. If the enemy hits touch AC? Miss chance applies, unless the enemy can bypass concealment or miss chances as well.

True; of course, so do deflection and dodge bonuses. Miss chance does have its uses, it just isn't a good primary defense.


Diminishing returns with attack bonus? Miss chances become slightly better.

Actually, a low enemy attack bonus does not make miss chances any better (a 20% miss chance is a 20% miss chance), but does make AC be worth more (since each point is a higher percentage of the total hit chance.)


It's also the difference between +1 extra AC and +1 to all saving throws, because the latter applies to things that AC can't handle.

And the former applies to things that saving throws can't handle. And miss chance usually doesn't apply to the things where saves are more important anyway.


That's the importance of non-AC defenses, because there will be times when AC can be bypassed, ignored, or downright unnecessary, whereas stuff like saving throws, miss chances, DR, resistances and whatnot become more important.

Indeed. Same is true for touch AC. But most of the time, AC will be your most important defense, simply because most attacks target it. (Also, miss chances and DR are extremely easy to deal with too; miss chances rarely go high enough to be more than an inconvenience, and DR can be dealt with by high-damage attacks. Now, DR plus AC is tougher, as the AC makes Power Attack unfeasible and DR makes it necessary.)


That was the idea behind the recommendation: if you can get the chance for non-AC defenses, use them, because later on you can reinforce your AC and still get something better.

Why not reinforce your AC now, and grab the non-AC defense later?

In reality, both have their places.

That said, boosting ways for martial classes to boost either touch AC or miss chances is definitely a good idea; I find touch AC is a better approach there, as it rewards focusing far more.