(4E) Are Defenses worth it?

[Dublock]

I know in 3.5 they were not, and I have been wondering for a while now Did WotC fix the importance of defenses?

In order to answer my question I made a build, level 30. I went with Fighter. I'm not the best at optimization. Also I did not select a multi-class feat which I know I should have, not sure which one. I have never looked at them due to the fluff not matching. At the end against Orcus, I have ~60% of getting hit. (of base defenses, this decreases as the battle goes on, and actions like total defense and second wind)

====== Created Using Wizards of the Coast D&DI Character Builder ======
Wall, level 30
Dwarf, Fighter, Shield Adept, Undying Warrior
Fighter Talents: One-handed Weapon Talent

FINAL ABILITY SCORES
Str 25, Con 15, Dex 13, Int 12, Wis 24, Cha 10.

STARTING ABILITY SCORES
Str 18, Con 10, Dex 11, Int 10, Wis 14, Cha 8.


AC: 47 Fort: 50 Reflex: 42 Will: 46
HP: 204 Surges: 13 Surge Value: 56

TRAINED SKILLS
Athletics +23, Endurance +20, Heal +27

UNTRAINED SKILLS
Acrobatics +12, Arcana +16, Bluff +15, Diplomacy +15, Dungeoneering +24, History +16, Insight +22, Intimidate +15, Nature +22, Perception +24, Religion +16, Stealth +12, Streetwise +15, Thievery +12

FEATS
Level 1: Distracting Shield
Level 2: Shield Defense
Level 4: Shield the Fallen
Level 6: Dodge Giants
Level 8: Defensive Mobility
Level 10: Devoted Challenge
Level 11: Mettle
Level 12: Dwarven Durability
Level 14: Defensive Resilience
Level 16: Shield Push
Level 18: Take Measure
Level 20: Combat Anticipation
Level 21: Epic Reflexes
Level 22: Epic Fortitude
Level 24: Epic Will
Level 26: Robust Defenses
Level 28: Phalanx Warrior
Level 30: Armor Proficiency (Plate)

POWERS
Fighter at-will 1: Tide of Iron
Fighter at-will 1: Sure Strike
Fighter encounter 1: Shield Bash
Fighter daily 1: Brute Strike
Fighter utility 2: Defensive Stance
Fighter encounter 3: Shield Slam
Fighter daily 5: Bedeviling Assault
Fighter utility 6: Defensive Training
Fighter encounter 7: Iron Bulwark
Fighter daily 9: Victorious Surge
Fighter utility 10: Hunker Down
Fighter encounter 13: Giant's Wake (replaces Shield Bash)
Fighter daily 15: Defender's Gambit (replaces Brute Strike)
Fighter utility 16: Interposing Shield
Fighter encounter 17: Exacting Strike (replaces Shield Slam)
Fighter daily 19: Relentless Assailant (replaces Bedeviling Assault)
Fighter utility 22: Unyielding
Fighter encounter 23: Smashing Hammer (replaces Iron Bulwark)
Fighter daily 25: Earthquake Smash (replaces Victorious Surge)
Fighter encounter 27: Diamond Shield Defense (replaces Giant's Wake)
Fighter daily 29: No Mercy (replaces Defender's Gambit)

ITEMS
Salubrious Godplate Armor +6, Guardian Shield Heavy Shield (epic tier), Scarab of Invulnerability +6, Eye of Awareness (epic tier), Backtrack Bindings (epic tier), Defensive Warhammer +5, Ring of Regeneration (epic tier), Belt of Vim (paragon tier), Bracers of Iron Arcana (paragon tier), Gauntlets of Destruction (paragon tier), Ring of True Seeing (paragon tier)
====== Created Using Wizards of the Coast D&DI Character Builder ======


Any comments on my build (I know I have a few feats in an odd order and to lazy to re-do them)? I wasn't sure which Epic path to take.

A side comment I noticed while making the build, theres a lack of upper level shield powers aren't there?


So Playground, what do you think about defenses? Note I'm not talking about ability to defend other people, but rather blocking hits and if they do hit the ability to stay in fighting shape.

[Tengu_temp]

Where's Armor/Shield Specialization? If you want to max out AC, you need that.

Your final strength is way too low - it's better to start with 16 in it and upgrade it at every level. What weapon are you going to use? You should have enough dexterity or constitution to buy feats related to that weapon, especially the epic one that improves critical hit chance. You might want to take Dwarven Weapon Training, for both +2 damage and proficiency with Craghammer and Waraxe. Also, there is no reason not to take Weapon Expertise.

[RTGoodman]

I don't think you can have bracers AND a shield. As far as I know, both are supposed to occupy the Arm Slot, but there's a mistake in the Character Builder that puts shields in your off-hand instead of your arm slot.

[yilduz]

I don't think you can have bracers AND a shield. As far as I know, both are supposed to occupy the Arm Slot, but there's a mistake in the Character Builder that puts shields in your off-hand instead of your arm slot.

Buckler goes on the arm, any other shield is held in the off-hand.

[RTGoodman]

Buckler goes on the arm, any other shield is held in the off-hand.

Are you sure you're talking about 4E? My PHB doesn't have bucklers, and it says both shields (light and heavy) are strapped to your arm, either not requiring or requiring your hand also. They're even in the Arm Slot part of the magic items section.

[Artanis]

I don't think you can have bracers AND a shield. As far as I know, both are supposed to occupy the Arm Slot, but there's a mistake in the Character Builder that puts shields in your off-hand instead of your arm slot.

That would indeed be a mistake in the character builder. PHB 213 says: "When you use a shield, you strap it to an arm".

However, shields also "use up" your off-hand, so to speak. A light shield on an arm means you can't attack with that hand (but you can still use it for other stuff, like climbing and holding things), while having a heavy shield on an arm means you can't do anything at all with that hand.

[Mando Knight]

Buckler goes on the arm, any other shield is held in the off-hand.

Shields take both slots. You can only have either a magic shield or a magic bracer, and you can't wield a weapon while wearing a shield on the same arm. (you can use the off hand for holding items with a light shield, though)

Defenses are important, especially NADs, which are essentially as important as decent saves were in 3.X. An armor-specialized Paladin can have ridiculous defenses, enough so that any level-appropriate creature that's fighting him only has a 20-30% chance of hitting him.

[Artanis]

Something we both forgot to mention: it's important to note that you can still use gloves when holding a shield

[DM Raven]

Character Builder isn't broken. While it does let you equip both, you only gain the benefit of one magic item. So it's like wearing multiple rings or trying to put on two magic capes. In game, you can do it, but you only gain the benefit of one magic effect.

[valadil]

My unoptimized LFR paladin definitely thinks they are. At level 4 he has AC: 25, Fort: 19, Ref: 17, Will: 19. My AC is almost untouchable at this level. Reflex is about 50/50. If you have good defenses, making them awesome is worthwhile. If you have poor defense, making them good probably isn't worth your trouble.

[Artanis]

Character Builder isn't broken. While it does let you equip both, you only gain the benefit of one magic item. So it's like wearing multiple rings or trying to put on two magic capes. In game, you can do it, but you only gain the benefit of one magic effect.

Wait, so you can't use gloves while wielding a shield?

[RTGoodman]

Wait, so you can't use gloves while wielding a shield?

No, you can. You can't use a shield and, say, bracers, at the same time, since they're both Arm slot items.

Character Builder isn't broken. While it does let you equip both, you only gain the benefit of one magic item. So it's like wearing multiple rings or trying to put on two magic capes. In game, you can do it, but you only gain the benefit of one magic effect.

I just tried it out again, and it still seems to be letting me you a heavy shield AND iron armbands of power at the same time. I can equip them both in the "Shop" screen (the armbands only go in the arm slot, the shield only goes in the Off-Hand slot), and then I get the +2 AC/Reflex AND my powers screen updates to reflect the damage bonus from the armbands. Am I doing something wrong?

[Tehnar]

You are probably using a nonmagic shield.

[RTGoodman]

Nope - I was using the iron armbands of power (epic tier) and the dragonscale shield (Level 29) on a Level 30 Goliath Fighter.

[DM Raven]

It will only apply the constant bonuses for one item. So magic shields, such as the Dragonscale Shield, give situational bonuses and powers, none of which effect the calculations done by Character Sheet.

Magic items that offer contant bonuses that impact Character Sheet are disabled when both slots are filled. For example, if you equip Iron Armbands of Power (+2 damage) and the Flamedrinker Light Shield (Resist Fire 5), your character sheet will not display both of these constant effects.

Situational modifiers and magical item powers are not tracked by character builder. It's up to the player to track the use and application of those.

[Anonomuss]

I had a thread up a while back about maxing defences, the best we came up with was the following:

Lvl 30 Paladin/Shield Adept/Adamantine Soldier

Str: 20
Con: 15
Dex: 20
Int: 10
Wis: 12
Cha: 24

AC: 53
-(25[base] +24 [+6 Agile Specialist Godplate Armor] +2 [Heavy Shield] +2 [Adamantine Soldier])

Fort: 49
-(25[Base] +6 [Magic Amulet] +6 [Feats-Epic Fort and Robust Defences] +5 [Ability] +2 [Heavy Shield] +3 [Belt Item] +2 [Human Paladin])

Reflex: 49
-(25[Base] +6 [Magic Amulet] +6 [Feats-Epic Reflex and Robust Defences] +5 [Ability] +2 [Heavy Shield] +3 [Feet Item] +2 [Human Paladin])

Will: 49
(25[Base] +6 [Magic Amulet] +6 [Feats-Epic Fort and Robust Defences] +7 [Ability] +3 [Head Item] +2 [Human Paladin])

As it is Tiamat needs a 17+ to hit with her basic attack and an 11+ to hit the character's NADs.

While Orcus himself needs an 18+ to hit AC, and a 16+ to hit NADs.

I thought it was pretty decent.

[Artanis]

No, you can. You can't use a shield and, say, bracers, at the same time, since they're both Arm slot items.

Oh, *phew*

That's what I thought, it's just that DM Raven seemed to be saying otherwise

[Colmarr]

No, you can. You can't use a shield and, say, bracers, at the same time, since they're both Arm slot items.

I'm not sure this is correct.

You certainly can't gain the benefits of magic bracers and a magic shield (because they both take up the arm magic slot), but I don't recall reading anything that prohibits you from wearing magic bracers and a normal shield.*

In fact, it would seem silly to me to deny a PC a shield bonus to AC and Reflex because they want a property/power from bracers. It's not like the bracers provide an AC or Reflex bonus.

*By analogy, would anyone really argue that a PC can't wield two shields (one on each arm) because they're both arm slot items? (Note I'm not suggesting that the PC can get the bonus for both, simply that it's possible to do it).

[tcrudisi]

Fort: 49-(25[Base] +6 [Magic Amulet] +6 [Feats-Epic Fort and Robust Defences] +5 [Ability] +2 [Heavy Shield] +3 [Belt Item] +2 [Human Paladin])

How are you adding +2 from Heavy Shield to your Fortitude?

[Anonomuss]

How are you adding +2 from Heavy Shield to your Fortitude?

It's a Shield Adept paragon path ability, you can add your shield bonus to AC, Refl and Fort.

[Kurald Galain]

I know in 3.5 they were not, and I have been wondering for a while now Did WotC fix the importance of defenses?

That's a good question... the point is that for most characters, maxxing out your defenses should really not be a priority (defenders being the obvious exception), and that getting resistances is much, much better.

For instance, a +2 armor of resistance (or better yet, +2 deathcut armor, which gives two resistances) is much better than a +3 armor. And items that give resist/all (such as the berserker weapon) are extremely useful.

In general, the best defense is a good offense; so if the questions is whether you should raise your primary attack attribute by one point if the only drawback is that it lowers your defenses and skills (because your other attributes will be less), the answer is "absolutely!" But note that keeping your secondaries high for "rider" powers or for feat prereqs is still a good idea. Really, rather than trying to cover all bases, it is far more effective to put an 18 or more in your primary attribute.

[V'icternus]

Defences are totally worth it.

In 4e, not being hit is the best way to not die. AC can be fairly easy to raise, but a lot of badguys just love to hit your NADs. (Hehehe...)

I'd give defence raising a priority of 3.

1. Main attack stat.

2. Secondary attack/effect stat.

3. Defences.

4. Other random things that I'm too tired to thnk of. (You try thinking at 2:40AM...)

[NecroRebel]

Defences are totally worth it.

In 4e, not being hit is the best way to not die. AC can be fairly easy to raise, but a lot of badguys just love to hit your NADs. (Hehehe...)

I'd give defence raising a priority of 3.

1. Main attack stat.

2. Secondary attack/effect stat.

3. Defences.

4. Other random things that I'm too tired to thnk of. (You try thinking at 2:40AM...)

Agreed with this, except in the case of Defenders, who should optimize Defenses second and secondary attack third. Most defenders deal massive damage if enemies ignore them, which makes the defense gap needed for enemies to be better off ignoring the defender very large, so the defender maximizing defenses just reduces damage to the party overall more than low-defense defenders do.

Those defenders that lack damage-dealing defendery features, for instance Shielding Swordmages, have other ways of reducing damage dealt to other party members or dissuading enemies from ignoring them, thus they too should maximize defenses.

Also, the fourth point (random things) includes such things as feat qualification and long-term planning. At high paragon and epic tiers, classes can gain major benefits from tertiary or quaternary attributes, and those characters have enough money to purchase low-level equipment for simple utility as well as improving less-important stats.

[Jerthanis]

Agreed with this, except in the case of Defenders, who should optimize Defenses second and secondary attack third. Most defenders deal massive damage if enemies ignore them, which makes the defense gap needed for enemies to be better off ignoring the defender very large, so the defender maximizing defenses just reduces damage to the party overall more than low-defense defenders do.

Yeah, I've got a friend who thinks that Defenders should avoid having defenses be too high, because their targets will then just suck up the -2 to hit and target other party members, that to best fulfill the role of Defender, and take hits for the team, you should make it enticing for the enemies to hit you by making it so they have better chances to hit you than your allies.

I couldn't quite express to him why I thought this was a bad idea.

[NecroRebel]

Yeah, I've got a friend who thinks that Defenders should avoid having defenses be too high, because their targets will then just suck up the -2 to hit and target other party members, that to best fulfill the role of Defender, and take hits for the team, you should make it enticing for the enemies to hit you by making it so they have better chances to hit you than your allies.

I couldn't quite express to him why I thought this was a bad idea.

I did the math with a level 1 plate-and-heavy-shield Chaladin against the suggested goblin-fire beetle encounter. It turned out that, given the assumptions I made, the monsters were better off attacking the Paladin if they were Divine Challenged unless their other option's defense was 12 lower than the Paladin's.

In other words, they should've followed the mark unless the squishy's armor class was a whopping 8.

Which is, of course, literally impossible to attain under standard rules. Yeah, ignoring marks really isn't a good idea.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Yeah, I've got a friend who thinks that Defenders should avoid having defenses be too high, because their targets will then just suck up the -2 to hit and target other party members, that to best fulfill the role of Defender, and take hits for the team, you should make it enticing for the enemies to hit you by making it so they have better chances to hit you than your allies.

I couldn't quite express to him why I thought this was a bad idea.

Now, the case for the Paladin is quite easy (and unless you're a Brute, taking a CHAdin's Challenge damage is just a bad idea) but for Fighter you have to think about this:

(1) Doing that attack triggers the Fighter's Combat Challenge - you're going to get whacked. Even a Sword & Board with a Longsword is going to be doing between 1d8+3 and 1d8+6 at first level - and Fighters have extremely good accuracy.

(2) A -2 to attack sucks. Unless you're attacking someone who is granting CA, it becomes less of a good idea to risk a whack to the head for that attack.

That said, a Fighter does best as a denier. Anyone who is next to him is going to have a really hard time getting away to attack the fleet-footed squishy.

[Kurald Galain]

Yeah, I've got a friend who thinks that Defenders should avoid having defenses be too high, because their targets will then just suck up the -2 to hit and target other party members, that to best fulfill the role of Defender, and take hits for the team, you should make it enticing for the enemies to hit you by making it so they have better chances to hit you than your allies.

Well, I can see where that's coming form, except that your friend has it backwards. If the monsters are simply soaking the -2 and hitting your friends, you're failing as a defender (note that this tends to apply to paladins, assuming your DM uses decent strategy). However, by lowering your own defenses, you're only compounding the problem.

[NecroRebel]

Well, I can see where that's coming form, except that your friend has it backwards. If the monsters are simply soaking the -2 and hitting your friends, you're failing as a defender (note that this tends to apply to paladins, assuming your DM uses decent strategy). However, by lowering your own defenses, you're only compounding the problem.

You're still wrong about that, you know. If monsters are simply soaking the -2 to hit and hitting your friends, you're reducing the damage your party takes much more than if they attacked you, due to how much damage the defender class features do. You yourself pointed out at one point that defenders outdamage strikers if their marks are ignored; this is part of what makes them effective defenders. "Decent strategy" for monsters necessarily means following marks because of this fact.

Paladins also become radically more effective defenders at higher levels in comparison to Fighters because of the ever-increasing number of enemies with a teleport speed. Fighters' marks give -2 attack to teleporting enemies, and that's essentially it since they cannot OA or combat challenge attack teleporting enemies, while Paladins' marks give -2 attack and damage. Swordmages remain roughly equal in effectiveness across all levels since their immediate interrupt/reaction has a long enough range to outreach most teleporters, and I'm not familiar enough with Wardens yet to assess their abilities.

[Blackdrop]

Not to mention all the fun bonuses the Paladin's paragon paths add to their Challenges.