lvl vs armor vs cr etc

[Ketiara]

So I have a groupe consisting of 1 lvl 12 fighter dwarf , 1 lvl 11 druid, 1 lvl 11 cleric/wiz, 1 lvl 11 cleric/fighter, and 1 lvl 11 wiz.

The issue is the 12 fighter wich is why I havnt specified the other classes. But since this is an AC comparison ill let you know that the Wiz has an AC of 30 with shield and some dragon barkskin thing, the CLeric fighter w shield has an AC of 32. And the Druid has an ac in desmondu scout form with a +5 wild medium dragonhide armor and bite of the warerat (btw this is me) of 36. The bite buff gives me 6AC for 11 rounds.

So now we have the fighter, he was going to do some dwarven defender stuff, but kinda got hung up on a waraxe throw w. return charge, and in our game its twohand power attack is x3 so he is killing it with damage, but his AC is low like 25. So this dwarf has focussed on damage... wich is just fine but he is as a point where the dmg vs armor ration has tipped so much that he will be killed by anything he does 100+ dmg to... if it stays alive for long enough to retaliate,

So with this in mind what would you say a dwarf fighter's AC should look like at lvl 11? And i remember there being a guideline. Atm im getting crap about my AC being too high thus forcing the DM to alter the CR to make attacks count. But my argument is, I can do nowhere near the dmg of the fighter, if I attack melee Im doing like 20dmg if im lucky.
and the dwarf still has a +1 armor and ofc no shield.


So GITP: can anyone make a so so rule for armor as melee pr lvl ratio thing?

[TheFamilarRaven]

As a guide line, I've always said a melee character (or any character really who relies on hitting AC) should have somewhere between a 40-60% chance to successfully hit the creature. That's a rough estimate, actual numbers may vary.

Now, keep in mind, that at

higher levels, AC becomes pretty irrelevant. If all this DM is doing is sending in high powered monster who only attack AC, then that's a the DM fault. If he wants to challenge the players, then send something that DOESN'T rely on beating things to a pulp. Ghosts, Vampires, Demons/devils. Anything that can toss a few SLA's around really, monster that grapple and then constrict ...

[Ketiara]

True, but being a class dependant on AC and a limited magic item supply (no misschance) and ofc buffs from the groupe. What AC should he aim for? I meen we met a 10 head pyro hydra as the main monster amongst many others in the same encounter (the hydra was immune to attacks for a large part of the fight where it could dish out LOADS of dam) if it were to hit the fighter

BTW AWSOME FIGHT, but only because I could pull AoO and attacks because it could only hit me on 20s... wich our DM is imfamous for doing OFTEN!

[TheFamilarRaven]

I always assume that the monster that goes into melee will have a BaB as good as a fighter (it may not be true, but that's what I assume). I assume STR 20, and then +1 per 5 Cr the creature has.

So my rough formula for appropriate AC at any given level is (CR + 5 + 1 per 5 CR) +10 (the +10 being the 50% mark on a d20).

so a lvl 11 fighter should roughly have an AC 28.

Now yours has an AC of 25, that's three points lower than my guideline (yay math!), meaning that mister dwarfy dwarf will be getting hit 15% more often by creatures of CR 11 (that are meant to be melee combatants.)

I suggest picking up an animated tower shield for your fighter, or else pump his CON score sky high.

[(Un)Inspired]

You've got a wizard and a half in the party. Why isn't that dwarven fighter a hydra for every battle? Polymorph is your friend.

[sonofzeal]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v356/sonofzeal/ACbyLevel.png

^ my attempt at comparing AC attainable at each level for a Human Fighter, Centaur Fighter, and Halfling Swordsage. None of those are particularly optimized for AC, and are spending somewhat less than half of their WBL (I personally aim for 50% defensive spending, but some of that goes to non-AC defences).

Rogues and Rangers are likely to fall below the Fighter line, and Mineral Warrior Poison Dusk Lizardfolk are likely to fall well above it.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

I remember that graph! You were arguing that at least some PCs could invest reasonable amounts of resources into AC and have it matter, based upon the actual listed stats of the monsters in the SRD. The other poster was saying that your AC amounts were too low because most DMs thoroughly optimized monster feats and gear towards to-hit, giving them somewhere between a +10 and +20 bonus on top of what they have in the book. That was a silly argument.

OP: You're using wild shape for defensive purposes, and so you're getting a lot of defense. However, you could probably use your spells to about as great of an effect as the fighter's damage - in fact, it'll probably fall on you to keep him alive. Technically there's some optimization by the numbers thread that suggests what CR will have what attack, but from experience I can tell you that GMs like to be able to hit everyone in the group. That means your friend is going to get hit a lot, because the GM is going to want to be able to hit your druid with his guys. That means he'll actually do the odd thing I mentioned above - swapping out feats, optimizing gear, all for +hit. That's what I ended up doing in a crazy gestalt game I ran where one character started the game with ~40AC and it just went up (to ~70) from there. In this case maybe the fighter should invest in some illusion-based defenses, since AC has become less useful for him. That +1 armor could use a Displacement enchantment, for instance.

Does this mean your investment is useless or detrimental? Not necessarily. The GM could have been using those feats or gear to pump damage, or defense, or something else. But now he's forced to either just jack up the CR wholesale (I also did that) and/or spend monster resources on to-hit bonuses.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Is the fighter spending his wealth wisely in regards to AC? If he hasn't already noticed, point out to the fighter that buying a +1 ring of protection and a +1 necklace of natural armor is cheaper than upgrading an armor from +2 to +3 and even +2 gloves of dexterity is a little cheaper if the armor doesn't cap it. My point is that it's important to diversify in your ac spending if you want to have a shot at keeping your ac relevant.

In any case you wanna be at no less than level +18 if you're shock infantry and 5 higher if you're tanking.

[emeraldstreak]

Unlike casters, fighters have to invest wealth or feats to get AC. Seems to me your dwarf isn't too keen on spending defensively.

[Fouredged Sword]

The rule of thumb I use is that anyone in melee range should have at least AC=ECL+13 and dedicated melee characters should have AC=ECL+23. If you can't hit ECL+13, ignore defense completely as it isn't doing you any good. If you invest too much past ECL+23, you are going to hit diminishing returns fairly quickly.

[Ketiara]

You've got a wizard and a half in the party. Why isn't that dwarven fighter a hydra for every battle? Polymorph is your friend.

I helped my wiz friend statting out a hydrashape for himself and for the fighter, but when we surprised our DM with it, he asked the wiz politely to reconsider that spell, and perhaps even remove that spell from his repertoire

[(Un)Inspired]

I helped my wiz friend statting out a hydrashape for himself and for the fighter, but when we surprised our DM with it, he asked the wiz politely to reconsider that spell, and perhaps even remove that spell from his repertoire

Oy what a turd.

We'll you guys could still pump him full of heroics, enlarge person and the like to power him up.