|[4E] - Mike Mearls on magic-less parties

Matt Frisch <matuse73.DeleteThis@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 17:47:54 GMT, Keith Davies <keith.davies.DeleteThis@kjdavies.org>
> scribed into the ether:
>
>>One of the things I don't like about 3e, in fact. Dex-monkeys and tanks
>>tend to have about the same AC. Sure, the Dex-monkey has to have a
>>better Dex score (duh), but that's what the charactr is *about*. This
>>makes it effectively a 0-cost 'limitation'.
>
> Except for having to dump a pile of points into dex, denying them in
> strength, or if he pumps both, then something else has to suffer quite
> a bit.

Pumping Dex is generally a *good* thing. AC, Reflex saves, Initiative,
attack bonus (with Weapon Finesse).

>> The tank, OTOH, gets to pay more money for his gear, move slower, and
>> carry more weight.
>
> While hitting harder, and not suddenly becoming a walking dead man in
> a circumstance where dex bonus is denied for whatever reason. Also
> less dependant on -specific- armor to maximize his AC. A set of
> fullplate isn't too hard to get. A mithril breastplate for a dex
> monkey is a taller order.

I see touch attacks much more often than denied Dex. Especially
considering the initiative bonus the Dex monkey likely has.

Put it this way: if Dex+light armor isn't so much better than tanking,
why do I see so many Dex-monkey combatants than tanks?


Keith
--
Keith Davies below you, right now: radioactive magma
keith.davies.DeleteThis@kjdavies.org above you, right now: hard vacuum
keith.davies.DeleteThis@gmail.com probably somewhere near you: a product with
http://www.kjdavies.org/ label warning you it is unsafe if misused
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] - Mike Mearls on magic-less parties 

On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 04:54:28 GMT, Keith Davies <keith.davies.DeleteThis@kjdavies.org>
scribed into the ether:

>Matt Frisch <matuse73.DeleteThis@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 17:47:54 GMT, Keith Davies <keith.davies.DeleteThis@kjdavies.org>
>> scribed into the ether:
>>
>>>One of the things I don't like about 3e, in fact. Dex-monkeys and tanks
>>>tend to have about the same AC. Sure, the Dex-monkey has to have a
>>>better Dex score (duh), but that's what the charactr is *about*. This
>>>makes it effectively a 0-cost 'limitation'.
>>
>> Except for having to dump a pile of points into dex, denying them in
>> strength, or if he pumps both, then something else has to suffer quite
>> a bit.
>
>Pumping Dex is generally a *good* thing. AC, Reflex saves, Initiative,
>attack bonus (with Weapon Finesse).

Which also severely compromises your damage and carrying capacity in the
process. Fighters aren't strapped for feats (for stuff like weapon
finesse), but fighters are also not the only ones who need the big ACs.

>>> The tank, OTOH, gets to pay more money for his gear, move slower, and
>>> carry more weight.
>>
>> While hitting harder, and not suddenly becoming a walking dead man in
>> a circumstance where dex bonus is denied for whatever reason. Also
>> less dependant on -specific- armor to maximize his AC. A set of
>> fullplate isn't too hard to get. A mithril breastplate for a dex
>> monkey is a taller order.
>
>I see touch attacks much more often than denied Dex. Especially
>considering the initiative bonus the Dex monkey likely has.
>
>Put it this way: if Dex+light armor isn't so much better than tanking,
>why do I see so many Dex-monkey combatants than tanks?

I hardly ever see them. And hell, I've played a fair bit of DDO, which lets
players get their stats to pretty obscene levels. Plate tanks are by far
the most dominant.
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] - Mike Mearls on magic-less parties 

"Matt Frisch" <matuse73.DeleteThis@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
news:nbq4s3hkq807336uk0bfbkv33io8c5nfu0@4ax.com...
> Keith Davies <keith.davies.DeleteThis@kjdavies.org>:

>>Put it this way: if Dex+light armor isn't so much better than tanking,
>>why do I see so many Dex-monkey combatants than tanks?
>
> I hardly ever see them.

My experience matches Keith's.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] - Mike Mearls on magic-less parties 

On Feb 25, 3:07 am, "Malachias Invictus" <invictuse... RemoveThis @yahoo.com>
wrote:
> "Matt Frisch" <matus... RemoveThis @yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
>
> news:nbq4s3hkq807336uk0bfbkv33io8c5nfu0@4ax.com...
>
> > Keith Davies <keith.dav... RemoveThis @kjdavies.org>:
> >>Put it this way: if Dex+light armor isn't so much better than tanking,
> >>why do I see so many Dex-monkey combatants than tanks?
>
> > I hardly ever see them.
>
> My experience matches Keith's.

May or may not tell us anything about efficiency of the two builds.

LOTS of players and people on this group tend to strongly undervalue a
+1 to hit or +1 to AC. They may be figuring "close" is good enough
even if it's not. IME fast guys actually end up a couple of points
behind on AC (in fact full plate and 12 Dex is a point better than any
other reasonable combination, and light characters don't always max
out their dex bonus to AC).

Monsters hit armored types maybe 25% of their total attacks, dropping
that to 20% is a big deal.

IME faster movement mostly gives more spotlight time, it rarely really
helps much in combat, and if you charge forward ahead of the tank I'm
not going to pull any punches when the BBEG + minions intended to
seriously challenge the entire group find themselves fighting only the
fast guy on his own with no other really good targets. I've seen LOTS
of dead fast guys in my games, I don't think I've EVER managed to kill
a tank outside of one TPK. The fast build is STILL more popular
because (a) many players value spotlight over effciency and (b) many
players are trying to build the hero of their favorite fantasy story
and few modern fantasies' heroes bother with armor when its so much
easier for the writer to simply keep all those nasty pointy things
away.

DougL
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] - Mike Mearls on magic-less parties 

Malachias Invictus wrote:
> "Matt Frisch" <matuse73 RemoveThis @yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
> news:nbq4s3hkq807336uk0bfbkv33io8c5nfu0@4ax.com...
>
>>Keith Davies <keith.davies RemoveThis @kjdavies.org>:
>
>
>>>Put it this way: if Dex+light armor isn't so much better than tanking,
>>>why do I see so many Dex-monkey combatants than tanks?
>>
>>I hardly ever see them.
>
>
> My experience matches Keith's.
>

I don't see either, in the sense that I could classify characters
that way, and the reason for that probably explains a lot of the
subtle or obvious differences between the way my campaigns go and the
way other peoples' do.

We build characters based on a concept -- not a "he's a dex based
fighter" concept but "He's Camillus, a Grecian Warrior-type from
Aegeia, trained by one of the Saints to be a gladiator and later
special warrior agent..." or "She's a Barbarian who found the religion
of Thor and became a Paladin".

Usually all the design is based around who the person is. The closest
to minmaxing I usually see is deciding which feat progression will end
up coming closest to replicating the fighting approach the player wants.



--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] - Mike Mearls on magic-less parties 

"DougL" <lampert.doug.RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3a62d9a9-c47c-4611-8e54-06d101b20636@64g2000hsw.googlegroups.com...
>"Malachias Invictus" <invictuse....RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "Matt Frisch" <matus....RemoveThis@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
> > Keith Davies <keith.dav....RemoveThis@kjdavies.org>:

>> >>Put it this way: if Dex+light armor isn't so much better than tanking,
>> >>why do I see so many Dex-monkey combatants than tanks?

>> > I hardly ever see them.

>> My experience matches Keith's.

>May or may not tell us anything about efficiency of the two builds.

>LOTS of players and people on this group tend to strongly undervalue a
>+1 to hit or +1 to AC.

I am not one of them. I try to squeeze out every plus, for the most part.

> They may be figuring "close" is good enough
> even if it's not. IME fast guys actually end up a couple of points
> behind on AC (in fact full plate and 12 Dex is a point better than any
> other reasonable combination, and light characters don't always max
> out their dex bonus to AC).

If you are not coming close to maximum Dexterity, then you are likely right.
I find that most front-liners either have a very high Dexterity, or a very
low one (and most have the former). If you figure on a 16 Dexterity (which
is high), you are losing 2 AC from Dexterity by going heavy (Full Plate),
but gaining 4 AC from Armor (vs. a Chain Shirt). On the other hand, once
you get a +4 Dexterity item, you are even. Even, that is, if you ignore
weight issues, movement penalties, and armor check penalties. The higher
level you get, the less that heavy armor is helping.

>Monsters hit armored types maybe 25% of their total attacks, dropping
>that to 20% is a big deal.

Yes, it is.

> IME faster movement mostly gives more spotlight time, it rarely really
> helps much in combat,

I find that it matters in combat quite a bit, especially if you are using
Book of 9 Swords.

> and if you charge forward ahead of the tank I'm
> not going to pull any punches when the BBEG + minions intended to
> seriously challenge the entire group find themselves fighting only the
> fast guy on his own with no other really good targets.

That is why the fast guy invariably takes Spring Attack, which works better
with more movement.

> I've seen LOTS of dead fast guys in my games, I don't think I've
> EVER managed to kill a tank outside of one TPK.

Apparently, your party has never been routed and had to run for their lives.
The guy who only moves 20' is toast.

> The fast build is STILL more popular because (a) many players value
> spotlight over effciency and (b) many players are trying to build the hero
> of their favorite fantasy story and few modern fantasies' heroes bother
> with armor when its so much easier for the writer to simply keep all those
> nasty pointy things away.

That is not the case here. It is purely mathematical.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] - Mike Mearls on magic-less parties 

Matt Frisch <matuse73.TakeThisOut@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 04:54:28 GMT, Keith Davies <keith.davies.TakeThisOut@kjdavies.org>
> scribed into the ether:
>
>>Matt Frisch <matuse73.TakeThisOut@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 17:47:54 GMT, Keith Davies <keith.davies.TakeThisOut@kjdavies.org>
>>> scribed into the ether:
>>>
>>>>One of the things I don't like about 3e, in fact. Dex-monkeys and tanks
>>>>tend to have about the same AC. Sure, the Dex-monkey has to have a
>>>>better Dex score (duh), but that's what the charactr is *about*. This
>>>>makes it effectively a 0-cost 'limitation'.
>>>
>>> Except for having to dump a pile of points into dex, denying them in
>>> strength, or if he pumps both, then something else has to suffer quite
>>> a bit.
>>
>>Pumping Dex is generally a *good* thing. AC, Reflex saves, Initiative,
>>attack bonus (with Weapon Finesse).
>
> Which also severely compromises your damage and carrying capacity in
> the process. Fighters aren't strapped for feats (for stuff like weapon
> finesse), but fighters are also not the only ones who need the big
> ACs.

Carrying 50+ pounds of armor also compromises your carrying capacity, or
at least uses it up. And slows you down regardless of how strong you
are.

>>>> The tank, OTOH, gets to pay more money for his gear, move slower, and
>>>> carry more weight.
>>>
>>> While hitting harder, and not suddenly becoming a walking dead man in
>>> a circumstance where dex bonus is denied for whatever reason. Also
>>> less dependant on -specific- armor to maximize his AC. A set of
>>> fullplate isn't too hard to get. A mithril breastplate for a dex
>>> monkey is a taller order.

I'll grant the mithral breastplate, but they are such standard gear now
that they should be readily available at Armormart.

If they aren't, there should be more contention for them and therefore
higher prices. As it is, a mithral breastplate is only 1200gp. That's
less than mundane full plate, and it's considered masterwork. It's also
harder and stronger than steel. It's a great deal for the cost.

>>I see touch attacks much more often than denied Dex. Especially
>>considering the initiative bonus the Dex monkey likely has.
>>
>>Put it this way: if Dex+light armor isn't so much better than tanking,
>>why do I see so many Dex-monkey combatants than tanks?
>
> I hardly ever see them. And hell, I've played a fair bit of DDO, which
> lets players get their stats to pretty obscene levels. Plate tanks are
> by far the most dominant.

Mileage varies, obviously.


Keith
--
Keith Davies below you, right now: radioactive magma
keith.davies.TakeThisOut@kjdavies.org above you, right now: hard vacuum
keith.davies.TakeThisOut@gmail.com probably somewhere near you: a product with
http://www.kjdavies.org/ label warning you it is unsafe if misused
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] - Mike Mearls on magic-less parties 

On Feb 24, 1:55 am, Peter Knutsen <pe... RemoveThis @sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
> Mark Blunden wrote:
> > "Peter Knutsen" <pe... RemoveThis @sagatafl.invalid> wrote in message
> [...]
> >> It's called consistency, and it is very difficult. Not many people
> >> have got what it takes to deliver this precious and intrinsically
> >> valuable commodity.
>
> > And then there are those who do have what it takes, and choose not to,
> > simply because it's more fun for the whole group that way. A commodity's
> > only as valuable as the market makes it.
>
> My general approach to life is that when I don't see a person doing a
> difficult thing, it is because said person doesn't *have* the capability
> to do that difficult thing.
>

You should try giving people the benefit of the doubt. It's very
liberating!
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] - Mike Mearls on magic-less parties 

Del Rio wrote:

> That's why games with less silly combat abstractions model Dex based AC
> as avoidance which makes you harder to hit, and heavy armor as
> damage-absorption, which makes you less prone to take harm from being
> hit. You know - like it actually works IRL.

<sigh> That's not at all how it works in real life.


And yes, I see the smiley, I just don't care. What is it with
everyone being wrong on the internet lately?

--
tussock
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] - Mike Mearls on magic-less parties 

In article <47c26726 RemoveThis @clear.net.nz>, tussock <scrub RemoveThis @clear.net.nz> wrote:
>Del Rio wrote:
>
>> That's why games with less silly combat abstractions model Dex based AC
>> as avoidance which makes you harder to hit, and heavy armor as
>> damage-absorption, which makes you less prone to take harm from being
>> hit. You know - like it actually works IRL.
>
> <sigh> That's not at all how it works in real life.

Uh, yeah, actually it is. Although truthfully *skill* is what
matters more in avoidance than raw dexterity. Between blocking
/ parrying and sidestepping / dodging, that's how a fighter
avoids "getting hit". Armor doesn't keep you from getting hit
(in fact, by slightly impeding your movements with constriction
and mass, and often obscuring your peripheral vision, it makes
you slightly more prone to getting hit), but armor absorbs the
energy of the hit and distributes it across a wider area so it
doesn't injure you as badly, which is what makes it worth
using.

> And yes, I see the smiley, I just don't care. What is it with
>everyone being wrong on the internet lately?

I dunno - between this, and your attempt to explain healing as
"retroactive damage absorption" I'm coming to the conclusion
that you're just not very bright.

--
"I know I promised, Lord, never again. But I also know
that YOU know what a weak-willed person I am."
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] - Mike Mearls on magic-less parties 

Malachias Invictus wrote:
> "Peter Knutsen" <peter RemoveThis @sagatafl.invalid> wrote in message
> news:47c13f20$0$15892$edfadb0f@dtext01.news.tele.dk...
>> Mark Blunden wrote:
>>> "Peter Knutsen" <peter RemoveThis @sagatafl.invalid> wrote in message
>> [...]
>>>> It's called consistency, and it is very difficult. Not many people have
>>>> got what it takes to deliver this precious and intrinsically valuable
>>>> commodity.
>>> And then there are those who do have what it takes, and choose not to,
>>> simply because it's more fun for the whole group that way. A commodity's
>>> only as valuable as the market makes it.
>> My general approach to life is that when I don't see a person doing a
>> difficult thing, it is because said person doesn't *have* the capability
>> to do that difficult thing.
>
> I never change the oil on my ultra stretch Hummer limousine. I know how. I
> don't climb up the back of my house and rappel off my roof down to my car to
> drive it, either, even though I could.
>

Chicken.
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] - Mike Mearls on magic-less parties 

"Hong Ooi" <hong.TakeThisOut@zipworld.com.au> wrote in message
news:13s5109h1t0vq99@corp.supernews.com...
> Malachias Invictus wrote:
>> "Peter Knutsen" <peter.TakeThisOut@sagatafl.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:47c13f20$0$15892$edfadb0f@dtext01.news.tele.dk...
>>> Mark Blunden wrote:
>>>> "Peter Knutsen" <peter.TakeThisOut@sagatafl.invalid> wrote in message
>>> [...]
>>>>> It's called consistency, and it is very difficult. Not many people
>>>>> have got what it takes to deliver this precious and intrinsically
>>>>> valuable commodity.
>>>> And then there are those who do have what it takes, and choose not to,
>>>> simply because it's more fun for the whole group that way. A
>>>> commodity's only as valuable as the market makes it.
>>> My general approach to life is that when I don't see a person doing a
>>> difficult thing, it is because said person doesn't *have* the capability
>>> to do that difficult thing.
>>
>> I never change the oil on my ultra stretch Hummer limousine. I know how.
>> I don't climb up the back of my house and rappel off my roof down to my
>> car to drive it, either, even though I could.
>>
>
> Chicken.

Oh, I would do it for chicken, but only if it was cooked well.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] - Mike Mearls on magic-less parties 

Del Rio wrote:
> In article <47c26726.RemoveThis@clear.net.nz>, tussock <scrub.RemoveThis@clear.net.nz> wrote:
>> Del Rio wrote:
>> And yes, I see the smiley, I just don't care. What is it with
>> everyone being wrong on the internet lately?
>
> I dunno - between this, and your attempt to explain healing as
> "retroactive damage absorption" I'm coming to the conclusion
> that you're just not very bright.
>

D&D has just taken over his brane. We must amputate!
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] - Mike Mearls on magic-less parties