Eladrin - a request for an AC experiment on Lamannia

While you are playing around with AC tanks (and making some much-needed improvements to Defender lines), any chance of revisiting epic purple-named To-Hits?

As an experiment on Lamannia, can you adjust the Epic Cojoined Abashai Devastator to have 60+3d20 To-Hit (instead of the current 100+1d20 or whatever it is)? The first die rolled would still determine critical threats, grazes, and auto-misses, like Minion.

If you do this and we can test the encounter, it will hopefully help you fix the mess that is Epic monster To-Hit. If you feel it improves the feel of the encounter, perhaps it could be rolled out onto the Live servers (with potentially slightly different numbers for other bosses).


Here's the amount of physical damage mitigation that certain ACs would provide. This assumes that grazing hits deal 35% damage (in practise it's probably closer to 40%, but I set up my spreadsheet before properly thinking this through). Also note that misses due to natural 1s cause 5% mitigation even for a 0AC Kensai.


Plausible, sustainable/semi-sustainable ACs for a threat tank with 400+ threat per second:

70 AC - 5.7% mitigation
75 - 8.575%
80 - 15.05%
85 - 26.07%
90 - 40.6%
93 - 49.75%
95 - 55.61%
97 - 61.1%
100 - 68.3%

and more degenerate ACs (not currently sustainable on any character that's likely to be able to hold aggro)
105 - 76.7%
108 - 79.64%
110 - 80.92%
120 or anything higher - 82.75%

Note that you'd need an AC of 97 or so to take the same amount of physical damage from the CAD as players do on Live - Displacement and rolls of natural 1s provides 52.5% mitigation on Live, and the CAD hits harder on Lama than on Live by about 30 points.


Edit: Some other people have suggested 60+1d60, or 60+1d40 plus the usual d20 roll. Both could work, although I prefer to suggest dice that exist in pen and paper. 60+1d60 would reward sub-75 ACs quite a bit, which I wasn't really trying to do, and would require different mechanics than the present '1=automiss, 20=autohit, 13+=graze if it's not a hit'. 60+1d40 plus a standard 1d20 attack roll would make every point of AC from 81 to 99 worth almost exactly the same amount of extra mitigation (2.5% before consideration of grazing hits).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sirgog

If you do this and we can test the encounter, it will hopefully help you fix the mess that is Epic monster To-Hit.

---

but...but... that would make AC usefull. o_O

/signed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The_Brave2

but...but... that would make AC usefull. o_O

---

Yep. And every single point from 64 to 120 would matter too :eek:

But each point would be a maximum of about 3% mitigation (mostly closer to 2%), rather than the 5% that you get, say, going from 82 to 83 on Elite Horoth, or even the ~3.5% you get (less because of grazing hits) going from 88 to 89 on elite Horoth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sirgog

Yep. And every single point from 64 to 120 would matter too :eek:

But each point would be a maximum of about 3% mitigation (mostly closer to 2%), rather than the 5% that you get, say, going from 82 to 83 on Elite Horoth, or even the ~3% you get (less because of grazing hits) going from 88 to 89 on elite Horoth.

---

I like that idea, something like that for trash mobs in epics would be a nice change also. trying to run the numbers in my head right now but failing to do so. :D 1 point giving 3% mitigation on a larger scale seems like a much better way to do things than 5% on a very small and difficult to hit range.

/Signed on the OP btw.

I'd love to see this.

Esp. before I start TRing some toons; I wouldn't mind going the AC route on one if it was more rewarding.

Interesting idea but I'd prefer the suggestion in the other thread titled something like Iterative Attack Rolls.

Ie, roll for defense as well as offense and then compare results.

this would be an excellent change, and would give people a legitimate chance at AC in epic, which i think has been needed. and this would also help to offset the weakening of players from raid bosses gaining true seeing

Some damage mitigation figures from AC based on 60+3d20, and no grazing hits (Edit: Post 11 adds in grazing hits):

AC 50 - 5% (auto-miss on 1)
AC 60 - 5%
AC 65 - 5.0125%
AC 70 - 5.7%
AC 75 - 8.575%
AC 80 - 15.2%
AC 85 - 26.9875%
AC 90 - 43.05%
AC 95 - 60.3625%
AC 100 - 75.8%
AC 105 - 86.5%

Degenerate ACs (120+) - 95%

Actual damage mitigation would be noticeably lower in the 90+ range once grazing hits were factored in, as on Epic, if the first die roll is a 13-19 and the attack misses, a lot of damage still comes through.


Putting it another way - if you require one heal every 5th time you are hit by the CAD, you'd need a heal after the following number of swings (on average);

50-75: About every 5.25 -5.4 swings
80: About every 6 swings
85: About every 7 swings
90: About every 9 swings (7-ish when you are in his Acid Fog)
95: About every 12.5 swings (or every 9 in Acid Fog)
100+: Grazing hits are too significant at this level to ignore here, without me redoing the numbers counting them.


As for epic trash - I think most of it should be in the 50+2d20 to 70+2d20 range, with the 50+2d20 mobs hitting significantly harder than the 70+2d20 mobs. Epic rednameds mostly in the 50+3d20 range.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sirgog

Some damage mitigation figures from AC based on 60+3d20, and no grazing hits:

AC 50 - 5% (auto-miss on 1)
AC 60 - 5%
AC 65 - 5.0125%
AC 70 - 5.7%
AC 75 - 8.575%
AC 80 - 15.2%
AC 85 - 26.9875%
AC 90 - 43.05%
AC 95 - 60.3625%
AC 100 - 75.8%
AC 105 - 86.5%

---

Seems like it takes a huge jump between those AC amounts. Overall looks solid, most builds would fall under the 15-35%ish mitigation while the exceptional builds would be hitting around 60% ish.

I like it. Would validate my AC build FVS. :D

Edit - This post has basically been copied into Post 1.


Added in grazing hits on a 13 (and will assume a graze does 35% of the damage of a regular hit, 40% is probably more accurate in hindsight but the spreadsheet was set up at 35%).

Plausible, semi-sustainable ACs

70 AC - 5.7% mitigation
75 - 8.575%
80 - 15.05%
85 - 26.07%
90 - 40.6%
93 - 49.75%
95 - 55.61%
97 - 61.1%
100 - 68.3%

and more degenerate ACs:
105 - 76.7%
108 - 79.64%
110 - 80.92%
120 or anything higher - 82.75%

Note that for classes with AC increasing clickies (mostly rogues) that build for AC, they can significantly increase their survivability in a pinch by hitting these clickies. A baseline 84 AC rogue has 23.50% damage mitigation under this system - hit Uncanny Dodge, and that's instantly pushed up to 40.6%, perhaps letting you fill in after a tank stood in fire and died, at least until they can get rebuffed. Other AC builds usually have smaller AC boosts available.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The_Brave2

Seems like it takes a huge jump between those AC amounts. Overall looks solid, most builds would fall under the 15-35%ish mitigation while the exceptional builds would be hitting around 60% ish.

I like it. Would validate my AC build FVS. :D

---

The present system jumps much more.

Assuming 100+1d20, and grazes for 40% damage on a 13, it's like this:

105: 20% mitigation
110: 45%
115: 66%
116: 69%
120 or higher: 81%

That's 5% mitigation per AC point for a range, as opposed to about 3.1% maximum on the 3d20 setup.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sirgog

(mostly rogues) perhaps letting you fill in after a tank stood in fire and died, at least until they can get rebuffed.

---

Did....you just say let the rogue tank? ._.

I like this idea, but if it's done the grazes need to go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The_Brave2

Did....you just say let the rogue tank? ._.

---

My first VOD completion had one. Probably one of the factors behind the 594 minute completion time. (This was when you could reenter after a wipe; I was only there for two hours of that).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grodon9999

I like this idea, but if it's done the grazes need to go.

---

Hmm... maybe they grazing hits could have an attack roll too, but a bit higher bonus, so they aren't completely gone so one isn't nearly fully invulnerable to damage except in bursts from spells?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Zyxas-

Hmm... maybe they grazing hits could have an attack roll too, but a bit higher bonus, so they aren't completely gone so one isn't nearly fully invulnerable to damage except in bursts from spells?

---

You WILL NOT be invulnerable with a 60 +3d20 to-hit :)

Remember, the most SUSTAINABLE AC anything with very high threat can put out is 90-95ish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The_Brave2

Did....you just say let the rogue tank? ._.

---

Lelo's rogue used to tank stuff all the time.

/signed

As a long time PnP player I appreciate that Turbine tries not to move too far from the basic3.5 rules, but 1d20 is just not enough randomness to make for a meaningful AC vs. AB interplay at epic levels. Giving epic mobs 2d20, and epic bosses 3d20 (with a lower AB) would be a nice modest step that could make AC useful and interesting without altering the fundamentals of the game. I could see going even further, but one step at a time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grodon9999

Lelo's rogue used to tank stuff all the time.

---

My shock isnt about a rogue tanking, its about them loosing so much sneak attack damage tanking, so why bother :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The_Brave2

Seems like it takes a huge jump between those AC amounts. Overall looks solid, most builds would fall under the 15-35%ish mitigation while the exceptional builds would be hitting around 60% ish.

I like it. Would validate my AC build FVS. :D

---

naturally. the roll of 3d20 will tend towards the middle values much more than the rolls of 1d20...

that is, there is an even distribution from 1-20 on a d20, with a 5% chance of each number occuring (in theory). the odds of rolling a 10 or 11 are actually equal to the odds of rolling 1 or 20.

on 3d20, assuming you had that exactly equal distribution of numbers, you would only get a 3 in 1 out of every 8,000 rolls or something crazy like that (that is, you'd need to hit 3 consecutive 1/20 chances, so 1/20/20/20 = 1/8,000).

in comparison, to get a 4, it's something like... you could roll: 1,1,2 = 4, or you could roll 1, 2, 1 = 4, or you could roll 1, 1, 2 = 4, so three times as likely if i'm not mistaken... or 3/8,000 which is still not a very high chance.. for a 5, it could be 1, 1, 3 or 1, 3, 1 or 3, 1, 1 or 2, 2, 1 or 1, 2, 2 or 2, 1, 2, so 5 chances out of 8,000 (much higher, but still not high). this sort of thing continues on, with theoretically most rolls coming out right near the middle of the "bell curve" so to speak. as a result, you see a lot more variation in numbers close to the theoretical average value of 3d20 + 60 (ie 91.5).

this is why a 5 point difference from 70-75 (close to 3%) is worth so much less than the 5 point difference from 90-95 (close to 15%)

and of course, starting from 75 and onwards (the lowest value where the "first" roll can be 13 and up), each AC point tends to be slightly less valuable than it otherwise would be, although this is mostly overridden by the overall trend for AC to matter close to ~91.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The_Brave2

My shock isnt about a rogue tanking, its about them loosing so much sneak attack damage tanking, so why bother :D

---

well if it's a temporary tank then a massive DPS (and therefore threat) reduction doesn't sound like such a bad idea :P

/signed

I really like the idea of spreading the random range so that there is some benefit for a larger range of ACs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaid314

well if it's a temporary tank then a massive DPS (and therefore threat) reduction doesn't sound like such a bad idea :P

---

Fair enough, but why would that rogue have enough threat to be able to take aggro when said tank dies? the smart rogue doing that much DPS would have threat reduction enhancements and gear, the gear could be switched off but I fail to see a rogue having the second amount of aggo on a boss.

However, if he is the second aggro generator on the boss, and he has an AC clickie, Best of luck tanking to him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wax_on_wax_off

Interesting idea but I'd prefer the suggestion in the other thread titled something like Iterative Attack Rolls.

Ie, roll for defense as well as offense and then compare results.

---

sounds like amazing amounts of lag just waiting to happen

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The_Brave2

Fair enough, but why would that rogue have enough threat to be able to take aggro when said tank dies? the smart rogue doing that much DPS would have thread reduction enhancement and gear, the gear could be switched off but I fail to see a rogue having the second amount of aggo on a boss.

However, if he is the second aggro generator on the boss, and he has an AC clickie, Best of luck tanking to him.

---

Intimidate.

That sort of rogue build (which admittedly hasn't been popular since a few months after the cap raised to 16) can and should train Intimidate. (In fact, most rogues should, so they can take aggro off critical party members to buy time in a near-wipe situation).

Intimidate is now better than it was pre-U9 at catching up when you are behind in threat. One successful Intim, and you are the threat leader for good, if everyone else stops attacking. Which they usually do in a 'oh hell, tank died and the boss is running across the room' situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sirgog

Intimidate.

the threat leader for good, if everyone else stops attacking. Which they usually do in a 'oh hell, tank died and the boss is running across the room' situation.

---

Fair enough, but I fail to see why an AC build rogue would be the ideal backup tank even in that situation. Granted, in an 'oh ****' situation, anything viable will do :D

Edit: Also, I love how in DDO even something that seems crazy can be made viable and work in some situations. Tanking Rogue? no problem. Mele Cleric? No problem. Main Healing Bard? No problem. Tanking Wizard? No problem. Just to name a few. :D one of my favorite parts of the game (granted im not a player that would play something like that, just like to see it done. Though I do play a Wizard that can tank.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sirgog

Intimidate.

That sort of rogue build (which admittedly hasn't been popular since a few months after the cap raised to 16) can and should train Intimidate. (In fact, most rogues should, so they can take aggro off critical party members to buy time in a near-wipe situation).

Intimidate is now better than it was pre-U9 at catching up when you are behind in threat. One successful Intim, and you are the threat leader for good, if everyone else stops attacking. Which they usually do in a 'oh hell, tank died and the boss is running across the room' situation.

---

Not even. You turn off SB (that's the Subtle Backstabber enhancement to you laymen), swap into something that disables your Tharnes, and stick the sucker with pointy objects.

I've picked up the agro before, on a dex based frickin' Drow with all that <stuff, so I don't get another infraction from one of my many "fans"> running ... it is not nearly as hard as you're making it. I've held it (agro in eChrono) through a breath, too.

It's gear, buffs, and sand, not class...or is currently on Live. We'll see with the update...as is, agro isn't the issue. You want it, you can get it. Sustainable survivability, on the other hand, is an issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The_Brave2

Edit: Also, I love how in DDO even something that seems crazy can be made viable and work in some situations.

---

That's because it isn't an archtype game, though it looks like such.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The_Brave2

Fair enough, but I fail to see why an AC build rogue would be the ideal backup tank even in that situation. Granted, in an 'oh ****' situation, anything viable will do :D

Edit: Also, I love how in DDO even something that seems crazy can be made viable and work in some situations. Tanking Rogue? no problem. Mele Cleric? No problem. Main Healing Bard? No problem. Tanking Wizard? No problem. Just to name a few. :D one of my favorite parts of the game (granted im not a player that would play something like that, just like to see it done. Though I do play a Wizard that can tank.)

---

That also is a reason why I like the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sirgog

As for epic trash - I think most of it should be in the 50+2d20 to 70+2d20 range, with the 50+2d20 mobs hitting significantly harder than the 70+2d20 mobs. Epic rednameds mostly in the 50+3d20 range.

---

I missed this, and I approve. Make it so Turbine.

Why do you keep insinuating that there is any problem with epic to hits of bosses?

They have been like this for years, and all new bosses have the same amounts.

They aren't making mistakes typing the value dude.

Not sure how I can break this to you any clearer, really sorry but its the bottmline and a fact:

AC is not intended to work on epic bosses because it would be far too easy to tank if they did.

They are meant to be a massive challenge but any and all groups, and not made 100% trivial by any 1 tank because he has some arbitrary stat that makes him invulnerable.

A system where its 100% damage or zero damage (or at least close enough) is just broken and doesn't work in an mmo set to the hardest setting intended to actually challenging endgame geared players.

Unless they set them to like grazing hit on a 2-20, then set there grazing hit damage to say 80% so your just taken the damage down a reasonable value like 20%.. No it can never happen. Such a massive reduction in damage either means

A) It's a joke if you have an AC tank.
B) They set the bosses damage so high it's impossible to tank without an AC tank.

Both options are poor and not fun.

Thus why they are instead giving the defensive PrE's huge +20% HP modifiers, rather then more AC, as they are already at more then enough to tank normal, and its not meant to work on epic.

But it's never enough is it.. Everyone must have every handed to them on a silver platter.. Even epic raid bosses aparently. All I can say is good luck, but the devs know better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shade

Why do you keep insinuating that there is any problem with epic to hits of bosses?

They have been like this for years, and all new bosses have the same amounts.

They aren't making mistakes typing the value dude.

Not sure how I can break this to you any clearer, really sorry but its the bottmline and a fact:

AC is not intended to work on epic bosses because it would be far too easy to tank if they did.

They are meant to be a massive challenge but any and all groups, and not made 100% trivial by any 1 tank because he has some arbitrary stat that makes him invulnerable.

A system where its 100% damage or zero damage (or at least close enough) is just broken and doesn't work in an mmo set to the hardest setting intended to actually challenging endgame geared players.

Unless they set them to like grazing hit on a 2-20, then set there grazing hit damage to say 80% so your just taken the damage down a reasonable value like 20%.. No it can never happen. Such a massive reduction in damage either means

A) It's a joke if you have an AC tank.
B) They set the bosses damage so high it's impossible to tank without an AC tank.

Both options are poor and not fun.

Thus why they are instead giving the defensive PrE's huge +20% HP modifiers, rather then more AC, as they are already at more then enough to tank normal, and its not meant to work on epic.

But it's never enough is it.. Everyone must have every handed to them on a silver platter.. Even epic raid bosses aparently. All I can say is good luck, but the devs know better.

---

Uh - AC works fine on the toughest boss in the game, right now.

Elite Horoth is not trivialised by an AC tank, nor is he impossible without one.

It's the easier bosses they released later - epic Lailat, epic Velah - that AC doesn't work on. And guess what - they are easier without AC than Horoth is with it.



Oh and on a side note - I for one am really looking forward to U11 totally killing off the 'tanks' with no damage mitigation, and never being in the position of having to heal a half-orc barbarian 'tank' through ToD again.

Should it be 3d20 or 1d60 added for this test? I think it'd be worth exploring.

60+3d20 gives 63 - 120, with significantly more rolls at ~90-93 (within 1.5 of the average) than < 70 or > 115.
60+1d60 gives 61 - 120 with an even probability distribution.

I've nothing against either of those options - just possibly raising awareness that the 2 are different.

This thread has raised a thought that to-hit could be scaled differently through difficulty settings.

Plucking figures out of nowhere... edit: Illustration purposes only, please don't hose me 'cos they're wrong!

Bloodplate on normal: To-Hit is 15+1d20.
Hard: To-Hit is 15+1d20+1d3.
Elite: 15+1d20+2d3
Epic: 60+1d60 (or 3d20)

Meh, whatever. As long as it works! :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meetch1972

Should it be 3d20 or 1d60 added for this test? I think it'd be worth exploring.

60+3d20 gives 63 - 120, with significantly more rolls at ~90-93 (within 1.5 of the average) than < 70 or > 115.
60+1d60 gives 61 - 120 with an even probability distribution.

I've nothing against either of those options - just possibly raising awareness that the 2 are different.

This thread has raised a thought that to-hit could be scaled differently through difficulty settings.

Plucking figures out of nowhere... edit: Illustration purposes only, please don't hose me 'cos they're wrong!

Bloodplate on normal: To-Hit is 15+1d20.
Hard: To-Hit is 15+1d20+1d3.
Elite: 15+1d20+2d3
Epic: 60+1d60 (or 3d20)

Meh, whatever. As long as it works! :D

---

60+1d60 is very different from 60+3d20, as you say.

The reason I didn't suggest that is that 60+1d60 doesn't really work well with a lot of other major systems in game - auto-misses on a 1, critical threats and the like.

You could mimic those by having a flat 5% automiss, 5% autocrit and a percentage chance to threaten a crit or land a graze that mimics the present one. But that feels (IMO) like it would be harder to understand. Easier to model, however.

I also considered suggesting 60+1d20, with a variable 1d40 bonus. I just didn't feel this was as elegant a solution as the 3d20 attack roll. The tabletop player in me likes the feel of rolling lots of d20s. (I did also consider 50+4d20, which is significantly more effort to model on a spreadsheet and I'd probably have needed to write a program to calculate accurate mitigation figures for that - any time you need a computer program to theorycraft, I think something's a little wrong). With 3d20, '3% per point of AC near the middle range' is an accurate approximation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sirgog

Uh - AC works fine on the toughest boss in the game, right now.

Elite Horoth is not trivialised by an AC tank, nor is he impossible without one.

It's the easier bosses they released later - epic Lailat, epic Velah - that AC doesn't work on. And guess what - they are easier without AC than Horoth is with it.



Oh and on a side note - I for one am really looking forward to U11 totally killing off the 'tanks' with no damage mitigation, and never being in the position of having to heal a half-orc barbarian 'tank' through ToD again.

---

Hell yes, so true. Getting hit for grazing hits at 45dmg on 13-19 still adds up and by no means makes it a cake walk. Easier than a meatbag hit for 100 every swing, but still no walk in the park.

Easily 90+ac with PA on and 830hp OR a 900hp meatbag?

http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php?t=337458

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shade

Why do you keep insinuating that there is any problem with epic to hits of bosses?

They have been like this for years, and all new bosses have the same amounts.

They aren't making mistakes typing the value dude.

Not sure how I can break this to you any clearer, really sorry but its the bottmline and a fact:

AC is not intended to work on epic bosses because it would be far too easy to tank if they did.

They are meant to be a massive challenge but any and all groups, and not made 100% trivial by any 1 tank because he has some arbitrary stat that makes him invulnerable.

A system where its 100% damage or zero damage (or at least close enough) is just broken and doesn't work in an mmo set to the hardest setting intended to actually challenging endgame geared players.

Unless they set them to like grazing hit on a 2-20, then set there grazing hit damage to say 80% so your just taken the damage down a reasonable value like 20%.. No it can never happen. Such a massive reduction in damage either means

A) It's a joke if you have an AC tank.
B) They set the bosses damage so high it's impossible to tank without an AC tank.

Both options are poor and not fun.

Thus why they are instead giving the defensive PrE's huge +20% HP modifiers, rather then more AC, as they are already at more then enough to tank normal, and its not meant to work on epic.

But it's never enough is it.. Everyone must have every handed to them on a silver platter.. Even epic raid bosses aparently. All I can say is good luck, but the devs know better.

---

Every epic boss on live right now is easy to tank.

Epic Abishai Devastator is a complete joke without evasion and staying in on fire.

Epic Lailat EVERYONE tanks. She has almost no hp.

Epic Velah swings slow and the fight is short.

These are trivial, but will just do more dmg in U11 and take longer to kill. How will an AC tank make that trivial if they get missed half the time and still get pinged for 50-60dmg on half of those misses ?

They still need healing, still need skill to pilot, still need gear, still need the player to focus. In fact they need to keep up more buffs and buttons to maintain aggro and keep ac up.

Allowing ac95 to be 50% misses on Epic bosses will not make the fights go faster, just smoother. You can still choose to take 2 barbarians and 4 bluebars and crush it. No one will stop you tanking on your barbarian, and you can freely decline those Defender gimps with more hp than most barbarians.

You cannot honestly ask for a nerf to fvs, tell us ac is not meant to work in epics as a design choice (when the devs wondered why no one used snb on lammy) while promoting the Barbarian Tank. It's just getting obnoxious.

Don't take that the wrong way, you get **** done, but how about someone else getting a chance to shine eh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sirgog

As an experiment on Lamannia, can you adjust the Epic Cojoined Abashai Devastator to have 60+3d20 To-Hit (instead of the current 100+1d20 or whatever it is)? The first die rolled would still determine critical threats, grazes, and auto-misses, like Minion.

---

I like the concept, but I do not think 3d20 would be a good way to do it. That is because when rolling 3 die they will average each outher out.

When you roll 1d20 you have the same chance to roll a 1 as you have to roll 20.

When you roll 3d20 you will get a large number of results from 25 to 35, and a progressively lower number of rolls towards 3 and 60.

I think the "working" ac range with this system would be even shorter than it is now.

On the other hand, if the roll was 1d60..........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shade

All I can say is good luck, but the devs know better.

---

Dude, the devs do not always succeed in implementing their intentions. It's BS to claim that existing systems prove anything about what their intentions are.

Oh, and epics as being a challenge for the best of the best: if "the best of the best" by definition cannot include AC tanks, something is wrong.

Agree,
And we would not see people either waiting so long for tanks for a couple non EPic raids, or failing because their healers run out of SP--hopefully:)

I think it would boost the game all around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mister_Peace

Dude, the devs do not always succeed in implementing their intentions. It's BS to claim that existing systems prove anything about what their intentions are.

Oh, and epics as being a challenge for the best of the best: if "the best of the best" by definition cannot include AC tanks, something is wrong.

---

Well.

Best of the Best obviously means fully epic geared barbarians followed by blue bars. Anything else would just be uncivilized.

I always think that the worst problem of D&D is the AC system.
It's complicated to adjust at high levels. When I was DNA I use DR boost depending of the amount of AC of the toon.
In this case it would be a boost of DR when blocking. More AC more DR.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaid314

naturally. the roll of 3d20 will tend towards the middle values much more than the rolls of 1d20...

that is, there is an even distribution from 1-20 on a d20, with a 5% chance of each number occuring (in theory). the odds of rolling a 10 or 11 are actually equal to the odds of rolling 1 or 20.

on 3d20, assuming you had that exactly equal distribution of numbers, you would only get a 3 in 1 out of every 8,000 rolls or something crazy like that (that is, you'd need to hit 3 consecutive 1/20 chances, so 1/20/20/20 = 1/8,000).

in comparison, to get a 4, it's something like... you could roll: 1,1,2 = 4, or you could roll 1, 2, 1 = 4, or you could roll 1, 1, 2 = 4, so three times as likely if i'm not mistaken... or 3/8,000 which is still not a very high chance.. for a 5, it could be 1, 1, 3 or 1, 3, 1 or 3, 1, 1 or 2, 2, 1 or 1, 2, 2 or 2, 1, 2, so 5 chances out of 8,000 (much higher, but still not high). this sort of thing continues on, with theoretically most rolls coming out right near the middle of the "bell curve" so to speak. as a result, you see a lot more variation in numbers close to the theoretical average value of 3d20 + 60 (ie 91.5).

this is why a 5 point difference from 70-75 (close to 3%) is worth so much less than the 5 point difference from 90-95 (close to 15%)

and of course, starting from 75 and onwards (the lowest value where the "first" roll can be 13 and up), each AC point tends to be slightly less valuable than it otherwise would be, although this is mostly overridden by the overall trend for AC to matter close to ~91.

---

Maybe make it 1d60 instead then?

edit: seems Dragavon posted the same suggestion.

It's a great suggestion and I hope they finally do something about the range of useful ac.

As The_Brave2 mentioned, a uniform distribution does have some shortcomings tho (notably also at lower lvls). This could be circumvented by doing something like

1. d3

If the result of 1. is
1 - mob rolls to hit + d40
2 - mob rolls to hit + 20 + d20
3 - mob rolls to hit + 20 + d40

This would make the middle range more probable. Just a thought. This too would result in problems at lower lvls. It could be possible to replace the 20 in case of initial d3 with cr tho. Guess that would be better.

Heh, getting slightly amused so I'll type another possibility involving cr

1. d3

If the result of the d3 in 1. is
1 - mob rolls to hit + d40
2 - mob rolls to hit + roundup(20*(cr/maxcr)) + d20
3 - mob rolls to hit + roundup(20*(cr/maxcr)) + d40

So for maxcr 30( not sure about current max mob cr in game. Just an example), cr 30, to hit 60, the range becomes 61-120 with values more concentrated in the middle make it a bit more ... how do I say it... less random? Edit. more expectable? Sry my english:D Second edit. Removed an inconsistency in the second model. Too bad it got completely ignored again:(

Third edit^^ After playing with a spread sheet, I repaired an error. Now assuming max cr, and mob to hit 60 results in ac 61-80 each point giving 0.833%, ac 81-100 each point giving 3.333% and ac 101-120 again each point giving 0.833% damage mitigation. My suggestion for critical would be the same as it's now, the highest 5%. Meaning if the range is 60 points, critical occurs at 58, 59 and 60. If it's 40, then critical occurs at 39 and 40. As for glancing hits, again the upper third seems ok. Similar to what is now. Guess I'll make a new possibly futile post about this to make it at least slightly possible that this is noted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Forzah

Maybe make it 1d60 instead then?

edit: seems Dragavon posted the same suggestion.

---

Wouldn't work smoothly with the system as it stands. You could do something more like 1d40+1d20 with the 1d40 being the effective "bonus" and the 1d20 being the actual attack roll though. The 1d20 would handle Critical hits Critical Misses and Grazing Hits. The 1d40 would just be the random bonus.

In general I like Sirgog's proposal, the specifics can be worked out later and modified to fit the encounter.

Aesop

i seem the problem is more the all/nothing situacion. get hit, you eat all, not get hit, you are gold.

maybe make something like....

if boss hits you for more than 20, 150% dmg
if boss hits you for less than 20, 100% dmg
...
if boss hits you for less than 2, 50% dmg

so basically high armor will give you something and will discorge low armor tanks with lol blocking, high dr, autoheal aura, bla bla to tank.

Editing OP to mention some of the other suggestions.

I like this idea it opens up possibilities for more dangerous bosses :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skavenaps

i seem the problem is more the all/nothing situacion. get hit, you eat all, not get hit, you are gold.

maybe make something like....

if boss hits you for more than 20, 150% dmg
if boss hits you for less than 20, 100% dmg
...
if boss hits you for less than 2, 50% dmg

so basically high armor will give you something and will discorge low armor tanks with lol blocking, high dr, autoheal aura, bla bla to tank.

---

There is *no* all or nothing situation currently. You can take a 91 AC plate shield blocking tank into water works and still take damage from melee attacks.

Grazing hits are already in the game which gives like 35% damage (65% mitigation) against an un-hittable target. Lowering mob to-hit values so that tanks with 80+ AC take mostly grazing hits will not gimp the game - 99% of the characters out there will still take full damage.

It would allow more people to 'tank' and smother runs if you have a 'tank' - and it would make AC boosts and temporary AC buffs worthwhile if the poo hits the fan.

And as to barbs - Frenzied Beserkers should not be the best tanks in game simply by having 1000 hps. When you can dip negative AC raged and start to attract weapons to yourself - you should not be a better tank than someone designed to avoid/block most of the damage. That's not only broken from a game mechanic side - it's broken from any kind of logic (fantasy or real) that you could put into the situation.

In response to Shade's expected "MOAR DPS!!! MOAR HP!!!! BRING 30 HEALERS!!!" reply . . .

Regardless of the additional HP defenders are getting, if damage mitigation doesn't work their existence is pointless. In guild we were talking about this, with new bonsuses most of our Stalwarts will be between 900-1000 HP fully prepared for a fight but we'd still be better off with Dwarf Barbarians if damage mitigation didn't work.

This proposed change makes it possible without being over-powered. Hell, AC isn't overpowered now on Elite do to grazes and spells/badges/etc. And if it makes Normal content trivial . . . who cares it's nothing compared to Wail of the Banshee.

As Sirgod mentioned, all the epic bosses were panzies. none had true-seeing and mooks like the CAD had an attack animation that matched the cooldown of a heal-scroll. I've tanked everyone of them on a 500 HP ranger. That same toon had also AC-tanked Elite Sulu and even with AC working Elite Sulu was MUCH tougher.

The epic bosses are getting true-seeing (right?), that damage mitigation we used to get from displacement is gone. This is a good thing, AC not working yet all the bosses getting 50% misses from displacement was beyond stupid.

I still think grazes need to go if this is implemented. I'd love to test it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sirgog

(I did also consider 50+4d20, which is significantly more effort to model on a spreadsheet

---

It's quite trivial to model on a spreadsheet, it's just difficult to know how to do it =)

Code:

---

1        20        =IF(A152>B$152,"",1)        =SUM(OFFSET(C152,-$B$152,0):C151)

---

I. Paste at A152, need to have as many empty rows as the max of the dice empty above colD+
II. All cells except B152 downwards to row 152 + max for die*number of dices.
III. Drag col D rightwards to get distributions for 2+ dices.
IV. Divide distribution columns with sum of columns to get probabilities

ColA: Result of roll
cellB 152:Die type to use, e.g. 2, 4, 6, etc.
ColC: distribution of outcomes.
ColD-Col<number of columns --3 dice>: distribution of possible outcomes

And ofc, with a small adjustment you can evaluate non uniform distributions too, e.g. when you have 1/20 for 0, 15/20 for 1 and 4/20 for 3.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dragavon

I think the "working" ac range with this system would be even shorter than it is now.

---

It would be narrower compared to the range of the possible outcomes, it would be wider than the current system though.

One important thing to keep in mind is that it's not really informative to look at miss chance, hit chance is better but still not all that informative.

The real impact of AC is the time it takes before you die/need healing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zealous

Both suggestions are also flawed in the same manner as the current system, the relative benefit of increasing ac is higher the higher your current ac is until you reach the no hit zone. E.g. If I get hit only on 19+, increasing ac by one cuts incoming damage in half, if hit on 3+ increasing ac by one will result in a negligible improvement. Damage will ofc converge towards the grazing hits level.

Using some kind of log scale would be preferable imo, diminishing returns an all that.

---

The benefit of further AC increases gets exponentially better the higher AC you have.

This all is ofc how the system works without grazing hits.

What grazing hits does in the current system is basicly stopping the exponential benefit going nova. In other words, grazing hits stops one aspect of AC being crazybroken in the current system. Despite all the griping, it functions pretty much the same as "always hit on 20".

Could probably have grazing hits in the proposed system too, they would likely need to be convoluted and mathy to retain the same function, or they could be kept more or less as is, making ac increases above a certain point less beneficial.

It still leaves the problem of "if your AC isn't at least X, might as well not worry". While AC increases in the proposed system would carry massive benefits when already in the middle of the range, I don't think it'd be incentive enough for people to bother "going AC".

*cough* log based *cough*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zealous

It still leaves the problem of "if your AC isn't at least X, might as well not worry". While AC increases in the proposed system would carry massive benefits when already in the middle of the range, I don't think it'd be incentive enough for people to bother "going AC".

*cough* log based *cough*

---

yes, but that number drops to 60.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sirgog

Plausible, sustainable/semi-sustainable ACs for a threat tank with 400+ threat per second:

70 AC - 5.7% mitigation
75 - 8.575%
80 - 15.05%
85 - 26.07%
90 - 40.6%
93 - 49.75%
95 - 55.61%
97 - 61.1%
100 - 68.3%

and more degenerate ACs (not currently sustainable on any character that's likely to be able to hold aggro)
105 - 76.7%
108 - 79.64%
110 - 80.92%
120 or anything higher - 82.75%

Note that you'd need an AC of 97 or so to take the same amount of physical damage from the CAD as players do on Live - Displacement and rolls of natural 1s provides 52.5% mitigation on Live, and the CAD hits harder on Lama than on Live by about 30 points.

---

That being the case I think the 60 + 3d20 might be too high. Probably 55 + 3d20 is more of a fit for what a tank can get. breaking 90 AC is extremely difficult in any sustainable manner on a toon putting out 500+ points of threat/second. I'd like to see a 40-50% miss change at 85.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grodon9999

That being the case I think the 60 + 3d20 might be too high. Probably 55 + 3d20 is more of a fit for what a tank can get. breaking 90 AC is extremely difficult in any sustainable manner on a toon putting out 500+ points of threat/second. I'd like to see a 40-50% miss change at 85.

---

Tack on 1d3*(-5) to replicate iterative attack bonuses, and that'd lower it as well, though I still prefer that other method long term, since folks would get to overcome weak ac with reflexes and keep on attacking the closer they get to being able to handle the AC requirements. Short term though, looks good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sirgog

60+1d60 is very different from 60+3d20

---

Yes, and I like the 3d20 version with the normal distribution curve with the majority of hits in the middle.

This is a great idea sirgog... Makes AC useful over a much larger range (although still only slightly useful in the lower ranges, but slightly is better than zero)

Out of interest, what would the mitigation percentages look like for a 40+4d20 roll?

80+ AC builds are very hard to make, especially for casual players, and this proposed system of multiple rolls seems like it would allow for lower AC thresholds whilst still giving max-kitted toons some gains for their effort (Albeit diminishing returns once they get past a certain point).

Personally I think even in epic content 50-ish AC should allow a small amount of protection. It's kind of sad that this game with all its complexity mostly boils down to hitpoints and dps.

Toning down the raid boss to-hit is a good idea, but AC will probably always be useless in Epics. In AC mode the tank will kill mobs too slowly for the AC to be effective. I'd estimate a Stalwart III does about 2/3 of the DPS of a Kensai III, which is a lot in Epics where killing mobs is the main aim.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by negativeprogression

Out of interest, what would the mitigation percentages look like for a 40+4d20 roll?

80+ AC builds are very hard to make, especially for casual players, and this proposed system of multiple rolls seems like it would allow for lower AC thresholds whilst still giving max-kitted toons some gains for their effort (Albeit diminishing returns once they get past a certain point).

Personally I think even in epic content 50-ish AC should allow a small amount of protection. It's kind of sad that this game with all its complexity mostly boils down to hitpoints and dps.

---

Well, what you need to realize is that epic content may not be for the casual player. The game in general should be considered to the casual player, being Normal difficulty geared towards it. Epic difficulty its different thou, its a content everyone can play but requires dedication both on experience, playing skills, understand of the game and its mechanics, character build, equipment, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Astraghal

Toning down the raid boss to-hit is a good idea, but AC will probably always be useless in Epics. In AC mode the tank will kill mobs too slowly for the AC to be effective. I'd estimate a Stalwart III does about 2/3 of the DPS of a Kensai III, which is a lot in Epics where killing mobs is the main aim.

---

Your estimate is a little off, a stalwart in DPS mode is only 10-15% behind a kensai. This is assuming equal gear, Weapon Specilizations, etc. The Kensai will have more boosts though.

In full-defense mode the DPS will drop but I have a feel Turbine doesn't want "DPS" toons to be able to survive tanking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blackmoors

Well, what you need to realize is that epic content may not be for the casual player. The game in general should be considered to the casual player, being Normal difficulty geared towards it. Epic difficulty its different thou, its a content everyone can play but requires dedication both on experience, playing skills, understand of the game and its mechanics, character build, equipment, etc.

---

More casual players can still do epics, just not as a critical role such as main tank or primary caster. i don't have a problem with that.

On another note, I think this thread is a very good point of discussion and many suggestions here seem on point to what AC on boss tanking and epic questing should be. People forget that the most common style of fighting should be (according with all fantasy lore and even medieval fighting) Sword and Shield. The fact everyone ingame runs around with two weapons or a big axe made people forget that...

Furthermore, I cant understand the "fear" of high AC tanks. When your focusing yourself on getting a high AC, theres something your loosing, more seldom than not DPS being the case. So, although having (very high) AC working on epics will or would be really nice, its something that more likely than not will only shine in 5% of the quests, the rest your better of with a DPS tank.

AC needs to work, it doesnt make no sense that a Barbarian using robes is better at tanking a Large Devil than a Heavy Plated Fighter using a Tower Shield. Its funny seeing people that boast about the 1000 HP builds are the same ones scared of what the 90 AC build can do to the game...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grodon9999

More casual players can still do epics, just not as a critical role such as main tank or primary caster. i don't have a problem with that.

---

OFC, nor would I ever say otherwise, my point is that although the Normal difficulty setting should be focused towards the Casual player (in terms of what he/she can achieve and challenge) while the Epic difficulty should be aimed for more experienced/knowledgeable/resourceful players.

I luv this idea. The by-the-book RPGer in me hates to move away from the d20 but I would rather do so then what we have ingame where most high level characters regardless of class are wearing robes/pjs. Thats just sad in some way. Its one thing to wear robes for flavor or because your multiclass somehow makes it work but its another thing entirely when the game mechanics themselves PUSH you to do so because anything else just doesn't work or make sense.

(On a sidenote I will dig up an idea from previous suggestions about making more armor types useful and add it here later.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sirgog

A lot of well thought out ideas.

---

Count me as agreeing to this and wishing to see it done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blackmoors

Furthermore, I cant understand the "fear" of high AC tanks. When your focusing yourself on getting a high AC, theres something your loosing, more seldom than not DPS being the case. So, although having (very high) AC working on epics will or would be really nice, its something that more likely than not will only shine in 5% of the quests, the rest your better of with a DPS tank.

AC needs to work, it doesnt make no sense that a Barbarian using robes is better at tanking a Large Devil than a Heavy Plated Fighter using a Tower Shield. Its funny seeing people that boast about the 1000 HP builds are the same ones scared of what the 90 AC build can do to the game...

---

People are protective of their "niche," and I don't blame them even if I disagree with their philosophies as to what this game should be. Barbarians were effective, arguably the best, tanks for so much content for so long that I can understand them getting a little annoyed if they're relegated to hitting a boss in the back. The changes to the Elite Devil raids makes meat-bag tanking almost impossible now (going from reports, haven't run them on lamaland).

I'm not sure I like that, even if it's not my cup of tea I don't see the need to **** in somebody else's kettle. Though my stalwart was always a threat-tank, I didn't like the U9 intim changes than made turtle-tanks useless. I'm don't like the ubbber-increased damage output that makes meat-bag tanks un-desirable either.

I don't like options being taken off the table. What I like about this game is that you don't need a perfect group for anything, that might not be the case much longer.

Let me do a good TL;DR for this.

AC being meaningless is not fun.
Being immune to all hits except on a 20 is (in the long run) not fun (at least on content that's supposed to be challenging).

I'd love to see an even larger range of meaningful AC's starting around 30 or so. Give people a reason to skip on the pajamas if they're not playing up a dex bonus. Notice I said a meaningful AC - not a particularly strong effect...just that it means something. Make it so that on the hardest content even ac's in the 30's do something (though again...very little) while there isn't a possible way to get AC's that create hit on a 20 only situations. How they do this is up to them...they could even make AC also provide passive percent-based DR. I don't really care. I would just like to see a more robust combat system that had a damage mitigation technique outside of the DR rules we currently have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shade

AC is not intended to work on epic bosses because it would be far too easy to tank if they did.

---

Well, everything is easier to tank with AC out of epics, why epics shouldnt be the same?

Everything is easier with instakills outside epics, why epics shouldnt be the same?

Everything is easier with DPS outside epics, why epics shouldnt be the same?

You see, mechanics like AC, DPS, Insta Kills are part of the game as a whole. Why should they be excluded in end game?

Crippling mechanics to fit new content is the best indicator of poor planing/thinking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grodon9999

Your estimate is a little off, a stalwart in DPS mode is only 10-15% behind a kensai. This is assuming equal gear, Weapon Specilizations, etc. The Kensai will have more boosts though.

In full-defense mode the DPS will drop but I have a feel Turbine doesn't want "DPS" toons to be able to survive tanking.

---

You will probably need to go full defence in Epics to make AC work. I doubt even ~80 unbuffed AC would help much. The only way I can see AC working in Epics is if the tank just goes for all out AC and Intimidate and be a sort of substitute crowd controller but he would still get beaten up pretty bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sebastrd

This has been bouncing around in my head for a while, so I figured I'd go ahead and post it for the devs to do with as they will.

Armor and types were terribly designed in 3.X. Weapon types weren't perfect either, but when you have multiple, multiplicative relevant factors balancing weapons (base damage, crit range, crit multiplier, etc.), that's a little more complicated and understandable.

Armor types have only two relevant differentiating factors: armor class and max dex bonus. (Armor Check Penalty and Arcane Spell Failure are non-factors; any character that cares about either of them will choose armor with ACP or ASF of zero, respectively.)

If you take a look at all of the armor types, you'll see that there is little rhyme or reason to these numbers outside of, perhaps, historical accuracy or personal opinion/preference.

Heavy
Full Plate: AC 8 + MD 1 = 9
Half Plate: AC 7 + MD 0 = 7
Banded Mail: AC 6 + MD 1 = 7
Splint Mail: AC 6 + MD 0 = 6

Medium
Chainmail: AC 5 + MD 2 = 7
Brigandine: AC 5 + MD 3 = 8
Breastplate: AC 5 + MD 3 = 8
Scale Mail: AC 4 + MD 3 = 7
Hide Armor: AC 3 + MD 4 = 7

Light
Chain Shirt: AC 4 + MD 4 = 8
Studded Leather: AC 3 + MD 5 = 8
Leather Armor: AC 2 + MD 6 = 8
Padded Armor: AC 1 + MD 8 = 9

The end result is that there are clear “bests” in armor types. (Weapons have the same issue, but are not nearly as easily fixed.) Full plate is the only reasonable choice among heavy armors, light armor is potentially as good as heavy and better than medium, and mithril full plate is far and away the best armor in the game.

Therefore, I recommend a simple and easy adjustment to armor types in order to even the field and eliminate “useless” armor types.

Heavy
Full Plate: AC 10 + MD 1 = 11
Half Plate: AC 9 + MD 2 = 11
Banded Mail: AC 8 + MD 3 = 11
Splint Mail: AC 7 + MD 4 = 11

Medium
Chainmail: AC 7 + MD 3 = 10
Brigandine: AC 8 + MD 2 = 10
Breastplate: AC 6 + MD 4 = 10
Scale Mail: AC 7 + MD 3 = 10
Hide Armor: AC 6 + MD 4 = 10

Light
Chain Shirt: AC 4 + MD 5 = 9
Studded Leather: AC 3 + MD 6 = 9
Leather Armor: AC 2 + MD 7 = 9
Padded Armor: AC 1 + MD 8 = 9

The end result of the adjustments is twofold:

1) All armors of a particular proficiency provide potentially identical armor classes, obviously dependent upon the character's DEX bonus. Not only that, but the higher a character’s DEX bonus, the wider the array of functionally identical armors from which to choose. This gives characters with high DEX a bit of a bonus for their investment.

2) The maximum attainable armor class is increased by one. Armor class quickly becomes irrelevant after a certain level, and players have been clamoring about that fact for a long time; a max AC increase is a small step toward fixing that problem. More importantly, characters that can gain better armor proficiency, either by class feature or feat, are rewarded with a slight increase in max AC. Heavy armor tanks, as they should be, will have the best possible armored AC in the game. (Yes, I do realize that high dexterity, monk based characters with an alternate source of armor bonus have the highest potential AC in the game. That situation is far beyond the scope of this post.)

The bottom line is that all armor types will become potentially useful, giving players more choices. Expansion of meaningful choices is always a good thing.

---

Quoted from Sebastrd in his thread Armor Fixes. This has the additional benefit of making more armor types with mithral or darkweave materials beneficial and competitive. I fully realize this is a small departure from the armor values of the PnP sources but it is a clever and reasonable departure with many benefits.

It boils down to this:

People like Shade who are die-hard barbarian fans are always going to not want AC to matter because they have none. AC tanks are going to want AC to matter because they have a lot. What I think it foolish is the notion that a barbarian with no armor and a big axe should be the best option for the “tank”.

Since when does it make you the best in the game to have your HP as high as possible and bring along a bunch of healers to keep your stupid toon alive. The way the game is going making the bosses hit harder, have more fortification, and more high damage spells only make it harder on the healers. I mean why on earth we would want the game to have ways for the melee toons to mitigate more damage as opposed to just surrounding a boss and hoping the healers keep them up. I mean for god’s sake if we make the melee’s need skill and not dump their AC that means that we can’t just blame the healers when we fail….that’s crazy!!!! Good god, if the Fighters could have viable AC that means that my precious Barbarian would have to attack from the back and not get the glory of being the “TANK” then people would start liking them more and it would be grade school all over again….NO DON’T PICK ME LAST FOR DODGEBALL AGAIN.

DDO started on their path to mediocrity the moment they started moving away from having defense as an option and pandered to the DPS ball and heal monkey method. This game needs a major overhaul if it wants to keep the DnD name.

Just because a healer hasn’t gone through mana pots doesn’t mean the quest wasn’t challenging. There are plenty of ways to make it challenging without making it Barbarian, Healer , caster repeat.
These can be obtained by making the bosses summon more minions, making the ones with wings fly and cast spells down (oh no, I cant get my axe that high…anyone have a ladder?) make some bosses launch you across the room. The only limitation is the imagination, and if you are content with the DPS and Heal race then I guess that imagination isn’t too vast.

And by the way TANKS are armored tracked vehicles with armaments . So a slower moving armored SD Fighter is a tank. A barbarian with sprint boost, a loin cloth and a big axe is an illiterate ****** with a bladed stick.

I think Barbarians are a asset to the party, just should not be the aggro tank if the game worked like it should.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seager52

a Barbarian With Sprint Boost, A Loin Cloth And A Big Axe Is An Illiterate ****** With A Bladed Stick.

---

+1 :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seager52

There are plenty of ways to make it challenging without making it Barbarian, Healer , caster repeat.
These can be obtained by making the bosses summon more minions, making the ones with wings fly and cast spells down (oh no, I cant get my axe that high…anyone have a ladder?) make some bosses launch you across the room. The only limitation is the imagination, and if you are content with the DPS and Heal race then I guess that imagination isn’t too vast.

---

Good post...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seager52

It boils down to this:NO DON’T PICK ME LAST FOR DODGEBALL AGAIN.

---

I laughed so hard with this one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seager52

DDO started on their path to mediocrity the moment they started moving away from having defense as an option and pandered to the DPS ball and heal monkey method. This game needs a major overhaul if it wants to keep the DnD name.

---

This is so true. Couldnt have said better mate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seager52

The only limitation is the imagination, and if you are content with the DPS and Heal race then I guess that imagination isn’t too vast.

---

Congratulations mate, you just got a new fan.

Must.....recharge.....rep....wand!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seager52

Since when does it make you the best in the game to have your HP as high as possible and bring along a bunch of healers to keep your stupid toon alive. The way the game is going making the bosses hit harder, have more fortification, and more high damage spells only make it harder on the healers. I mean why on earth we would want the game to have ways for the melee toons to mitigate more damage as opposed to just surrounding a boss and hoping the healers keep them up. I mean for god’s sake if we make the melee’s need skill and not dump their AC that means that we can’t just blame the healers when we fail….that’s crazy!!!!

...

DDO started on their path to mediocrity the moment they started moving away from having defense as an option and pandered to the DPS ball and heal monkey method. This game needs a major overhaul if it wants to keep the DnD name.

These can be obtained by making the bosses summon more minions, making the ones with wings fly and cast spells down (oh no, I cant get my axe that high…anyone have a ladder?) make some bosses launch you across the room. The only limitation is the imagination, and if you are content with the DPS and Heal race then I guess that imagination isn’t too vast.

And by the way TANKS are armored tracked vehicles with armaments . So a slower moving armored SD Fighter is a tank. A barbarian with sprint boost, a loin cloth and a big axe is an illiterate ****** with a bladed stick.

I think Barbarians are a asset to the party, just should not be the aggro tank if the game worked like it should.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blackmoors

Well, what you need to realize is that epic content may not be for the casual player. The game in general should be considered to the casual player, being Normal difficulty geared towards it. Epic difficulty its different thou, its a content everyone can play but requires dedication both on experience, playing skills, understand of the game and its mechanics, character build, equipment, etc.

---

Being a casual player doesnt mean that you dont have skills, or knowledge of game mechanics and builds. Experience can be shared within a team. The only thing casual players dont have easy access to is kit, that shouldn't exclude them from being able to play a role.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seager52

I think Barbarians are a asset to the party, just should not be the aggro tank if the game worked like it should.

---

quoting my ex-guild leader on this one,

"Having a big red bar is not a valid form of 'defense'"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seager52

It boils down to this:

People like Shade who are die-hard barbarian fans are always going to not want AC to matter because they have none. AC tanks are going to want AC to matter because they have a lot. What I think it foolish is the notion that a barbarian with no armor and a big axe should be the best option for the “tank”.

Since when does it make you the best in the game to have your HP as high as possible and bring along a bunch of healers to keep your stupid toon alive. The way the game is going making the bosses hit harder, have more fortification, and more high damage spells only make it harder on the healers. I mean why on earth we would want the game to have ways for the melee toons to mitigate more damage as opposed to just surrounding a boss and hoping the healers keep them up. I mean for god’s sake if we make the melee’s need skill and not dump their AC that means that we can’t just blame the healers when we fail….that’s crazy!!!! Good god, if the Fighters could have viable AC that means that my precious Barbarian would have to attack from the back and not get the glory of being the “TANK” then people would start liking them more and it would be grade school all over again….NO DON’T PICK ME LAST FOR DODGEBALL AGAIN.

DDO started on their path to mediocrity the moment they started moving away from having defense as an option and pandered to the DPS ball and heal monkey method. This game needs a major overhaul if it wants to keep the DnD name.

Just because a healer hasn’t gone through mana pots doesn’t mean the quest wasn’t challenging. There are plenty of ways to make it challenging without making it Barbarian, Healer , caster repeat.
These can be obtained by making the bosses summon more minions, making the ones with wings fly and cast spells down (oh no, I cant get my axe that high…anyone have a ladder?) make some bosses launch you across the room. The only limitation is the imagination, and if you are content with the DPS and Heal race then I guess that imagination isn’t too vast.

And by the way TANKS are armored tracked vehicles with armaments . So a slower moving armored SD Fighter is a tank. A barbarian with sprint boost, a loin cloth and a big axe is an illiterate ****** with a bladed stick.

I think Barbarians are a asset to the party, just should not be the aggro tank if the game worked like it should.

---

Spot on +1

I only skimmed the thread, but I've suggested something along these lines before. But I wouldn't restrict it to a single mob, if possible. I'd like to see an expanded to-hit range for mobs AND players. Although this would require a lot of balancing work to get the right numbers, this would be a fix both for AC and to-hit.

It's not just rediculous that AC is useless. It's silly that players can, apparently, by-and-large, hit just about all monsters on a 2. Both player AND monster AC should have value, and the issue is the limited 20 point attack roll range, and the large range of values for AC and to-hit that players can get.
Expanding the to-hit roll from a d20 to a d40 or d50, or multiple d20s would fix both issues. The hard part would be asjusting monster to-hit and AC to match (but as a stop-gap for testing, AC could be increased by the average of the die increase (eg. 11 for 2d10), and to-hit could be reduced by the same amount)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The_Brave2

but...but... that would make AC usefull. o_O

---

Yes, and THEN where would we be? You'd have all those bored 20's with all their epics and GS grinding for AC gear. And then they'd be unstoppable! Please, think of the monsters!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Astraghal

You will probably need to go full defence in Epics to make AC work. I doubt even ~80 unbuffed AC would help much. The only way I can see AC working in Epics is if the tank just goes for all out AC and Intimidate and be a sort of substitute crowd controller but he would still get beaten up pretty bad.

---

You won't need AC for trash, only bosses are getting more mojo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sirgog

My first VOD completion had one. Probably one of the factors behind the 594 minute completion time. (This was when you could reenter after a wipe; I was only there for two hours of that).

---

Sorry, my brain just exsploded (sic)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wonkey

I only skimmed the thread, but I've suggested something along these lines before. But I wouldn't restrict it to a single mob, if possible. I'd like to see an expanded to-hit range for mobs AND players. Although this would require a lot of balancing work to get the right numbers, this would be a fix both for AC and to-hit.

It's not just rediculous that AC is useless. It's silly that players can, apparently, by-and-large, hit just about all monsters on a 2. Both player AND monster AC should have value, and the issue is the limited 20 point attack roll range, and the large range of values for AC and to-hit that players can get.
Expanding the to-hit roll from a d20 to a d40 or d50, or multiple d20s would fix both issues. The hard part would be asjusting monster to-hit and AC to match (but as a stop-gap for testing, AC could be increased by the average of the die increase (eg. 11 for 2d10), and to-hit could be reduced by the same amount)

---

The problem is if you up the mob ACs too much non-kensais can't hit anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seager52

It boils down to this:

People like Shade who are die-hard barbarian fans are always going to not want AC to matter because they have none. AC tanks are going to want AC to matter because they have a lot. What I think it foolish is the notion that a barbarian with no armor and a big axe should be the best option for the “tank”.

Since when does it make you the best in the game to have your HP as high as possible and bring along a bunch of healers to keep your stupid toon alive. The way the game is going making the bosses hit harder, have more fortification, and more high damage spells only make it harder on the healers. I mean why on earth we would want the game to have ways for the melee toons to mitigate more damage as opposed to just surrounding a boss and hoping the healers keep them up. I mean for god’s sake if we make the melee’s need skill and not dump their AC that means that we can’t just blame the healers when we fail….that’s crazy!!!! Good god, if the Fighters could have viable AC that means that my precious Barbarian would have to attack from the back and not get the glory of being the “TANK” then people would start liking them more and it would be grade school all over again….NO DON’T PICK ME LAST FOR DODGEBALL AGAIN.

DDO started on their path to mediocrity the moment they started moving away from having defense as an option and pandered to the DPS ball and heal monkey method. This game needs a major overhaul if it wants to keep the DnD name.

Just because a healer hasn’t gone through mana pots doesn’t mean the quest wasn’t challenging. There are plenty of ways to make it challenging without making it Barbarian, Healer , caster repeat.
These can be obtained by making the bosses summon more minions, making the ones with wings fly and cast spells down (oh no, I cant get my axe that high…anyone have a ladder?) make some bosses launch you across the room. The only limitation is the imagination, and if you are content with the DPS and Heal race then I guess that imagination isn’t too vast.

And by the way TANKS are armored tracked vehicles with armaments . So a slower moving armored SD Fighter is a tank. A barbarian with sprint boost, a loin cloth and a big axe is an illiterate ****** with a bladed stick.

I think Barbarians are a asset to the party, just should not be the aggro tank if the game worked like it should.

---

It's a shame this post is to big to fit in my signature.

HOLY ****...one of my rant posts got me positive rep!?!?!?!

Its a good day to die gentlmen...its a cold day in hell.../death:eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seager52

HOLY ****...one of my rant posts got me positive rep!?!?!?!

Its a good day to die gentlmen...its a cold day in hell.../death:eek:

---

As far as rants go it was quite elegant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grodon9999

The problem is if you up the mob ACs too much non-kensais can't hit anything.

---

That's my point, actually. That's why the devs can't balance monster AC vs our to-hit (I went over this in detail a while back, but I'm too lazy to find it now). 20 points from a d20 is not enough to work with.
That's why EXPANDING the attack die roll for us and them fixes the issue. If, for example, you use a d40 instead, you can raise the monster AC so that gimpy to-hits won't hit very much, uber to-hits will still hit on a 2, and everyone else will be somewhere in the middle. Boosting to-hit will be meaningful again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wonkey

That's my point, actually. That's why the devs can't balance monster AC vs our to-hit (I went over this in detail a while back, but I'm too lazy to find it now). 20 points from a d20 is not enough to work with.
That's why EXPANDING the attack die roll for us and them fixes the issue. If, for example, you use a d40 instead, you can raise the monster AC so that gimpy to-hits won't hit very much, uber to-hits will still hit on a 2, and everyone else will be somewhere in the middle. Boosting to-hit will be meaningful again.

---

We don't have hundreds of thousands of HP either, I don't think the same rules that work for the players should work for the AI.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grodon9999

We don't have hundreds of thousands of HP either, I don't think the same rules that work for the players should work for the AI.

---

I think that unless there is a strong reason for things to work differently they should work the same. The AC change I proposed was for both players and mobs. It would also address the player side issue of hitting the 'magic number' making more to hit and mob ac debuffs useless.

In this case, there is little reason to think that a change on both sides of things would not be an improvement over the current horrible status quo.

Part of the problem with the current system, which is reflected in monster AC and HP as well- in reference to the d20 not being big enough post above- are the insane stats players can achieve in DDO.

I genuinely don't think the system was designed with the idea that a melee can reach a 70 str or a caster can reach a similar number in their primary stat.

These numbers are so far and away outside of the way the d20 system was designed that balancing around them forces epic encounters into the DPS/heal format as a way to keep them challening to people who run around with insanely unbalanced toons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cyr

I think that unless there is a strong reason for things to work differently they should work the same. The AC change I proposed was for both players and mobs. It would also address the player side issue of hitting the 'magic number' making more to hit and mob ac debuffs useless.

In this case, there is little reason to think that a change on both sides of things would not be an improvement over the current horrible status quo.

---

Don't get me wrong, i don't mind a mob being hard to hit as long as it makes sense. An ogre in a loin-clothe? Come on . . .

What do you have in mind for bosses? keep in mind with flanking bonuses, ID, Exhaustion, Sunder, we're gonna hit them on a 2 anyway unless the ACs are raised to such a stupid high level that it knocks anything that isn't a Kensai out of the running.

We also have to grind the **** for the gear to get our to-hits high enough, a capped 20 with no gear isn't going to hit everything on a 2, he might be hitting that bigtop wench on a 14. if your'e gonna make it so we have to wear Raven's sight, Gem of many facets, Epic Spectral gloves, and a bard to hit stuff reliably you've just knocked anyone who doesn't have that stuff back to the Inspired Quarter.

In PnP back in the day hitting and opponent was a much bigger deal as it is here, but they had the same HP as you and same damage-avoidance abilities. a 1000 HP tank versus a 500,000 HP boss . . . I don't think you can compare the two at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grodon9999

Don't get me wrong, i don't mind a mob being hard to hit as long as it makes sense. An ogre in a loin-clothe? Come on . . .

What do you have in mind for bosses? keep in mind with flanking bonuses, ID, Exhaustion, Sunder, we're gonna hit them on a 2 anyway unless the ACs are raised to such a stupid high level that it knocks anything that isn't a Kensai out of the running.

We also have to grind the **** for the gear to get our to-hits high enough, a capped 20 with no gear isn't going to hit everything on a 2, he might be hitting that bigtop wench on a 14. if your'e gonna make it so we have to wear Raven's sight, Gem of many facets, Epic Spectral gloves, and a bard to hit stuff reliably you've just knocked anyone who doesn't have that stuff back to the Inspired Quarter.

In PnP back in the day hitting and opponent was a much bigger deal as it is here, but they had the same HP as you and same damage-avoidance abilities. a 1000 HP tank versus a 500,000 HP boss . . . I don't think you can compare the two at all.

---

I have in mind for bosses exactly the same thing as I have in mind for players. It's the same mechanic. In other words every point you debuff a mobs AC or increase your to hit you will increase your percentage of hits. There would be no static get mob to X 'magic number' and then there is exactly a 5% miss chance that never goes down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cyr

I have in mind for bosses exactly the same thing as I have in mind for players. It's the same mechanic. In other words every point you debuff a mobs AC or increase your to hit you will increase your percentage of hits. There would be no static get mob to X 'magic number' and then there is exactly a 5% miss chance that never goes down.

---

Details, I dont' get what your saying. Take 20 off my to-hit and add a 2-40 variable instead of 1-20?

The solution is give barbarians better armor and get rid of fighters. The below is just some test art.

http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/g...bbarbarian.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cyr

I have in mind for bosses exactly the same thing as I have in mind for players. It's the same mechanic. In other words every point you debuff a mobs AC or increase your to hit you will increase your percentage of hits. There would be no static get mob to X 'magic number' and then there is exactly a 5% miss chance that never goes down.

---

The problem is the rules the entire system is based on assume your attack bonus goes *down* on a full attack.

Monster AC is supposed to be balanced so that a 3/4 BA class can hit the thing around 50% of the time. Monster attack is usually a single attack at the highest modifier - and full attack options usually are low enough that the monster is pretty sure to get the first hit - and have a good shot at missing a medium armor class on the further attacks.

Then again it's rare to see AC values so high anywhere in PnP - horned devils have what ... a 25 attack value? That would mean you are expecting your 'AC focused' characters at level 16 to have 35ish AC. Instead what we have is a horned devil with +75 attack and AC values that can get over 100.

Our system in game is already kludged - which is why they should just bite the bullet and come up with an alternative that works for AC toons, instead of what we have now.

Thought I'd post this here as the original post is a few pages back.

1. d3
If the result of the d3 is
1 - mob rolls to hit + d40
2 - mob rolls to hit + roundup(20*(cr/maxcr)) + d20
3 - mob rolls to hit + roundup(20*(cr/maxcr)) + d40

Assuming max cr, and mob to hit 60 results in ac 61-80 each point giving 0.833%, ac 81-100 each point giving 3.333% and ac 101-120 again each point giving 0.833% damage mitigation. The thresholds are 16.667% at ac 80, 83.333% at ac 100 and 95% at ac 114 and above if critical is highest 5%.

As is, my suggestion for critical would be the same as it's now, the highest 5%. Meaning if the range is 60 points, critical occurs at 58, 59 and 60. If it's 40, then critical occurs at 39 and 40. As for glancing hits, again the upper third (highest 33%) seems ok. Similar to what is now.

/signed on having the devs run some test fights with varying to-hit values.

How are you figuring 100+ AC as being semi-sustainable along with enough threat to have aggro, Numot?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grodon9999

Details, I dont' get what your saying. Take 20 off my to-hit and add a 2-40 variable instead of 1-20?

---

It's the same thing I was discussing in this thread or another one with you earlier in the week.

Delink to hits from the d20 system (great for pnp, but totally silly for a computer game) by making it instead a statistical roll on a bell curve with it's center = to hit + 10. From the hitting a mobs AC perspective this would mean that anytime you rolled to hit you could roll to hit anywhere from 0 to infinity (or a practical infinite in DDO terms of +250 lets say) and each point by which you decreased the difference between (your to hit + 10) and the mob AC until your to hit +10 was greater then the mobs AC you would gain a greater and greater chance of hitting the mob per point of increased to hit/decreased mob AC. After that crossover point you would still hit the mob more and more often for each point you increased your to hit/decreased mob AC, but instead of each point giving you an even greater percentage then the last it would give you a little less.

Basically you get more benefit per point of improvement until a certain to hit to AC threshold and then after that you still improve, but to a lesser and lesser degree...

Some numerical 'samples' that demonstrate the concept, but the percentages and crossover points could be varied depending upon how Turbine wants to balance things...note this is also not a proper bell curve, but mostly a demonstration of the basic concepts here...

Your To Hit +10 - Mob AC VS. Chance to hit
-40 2%
-30 5%
-20 15%
-10 30%
0 70%
10 85%
20 90%
30 93%

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joaofalcao

Well, everything is easier to tank with AC out of epics, why epics shouldnt be the same?

Everything is easier with instakills outside epics, why epics shouldnt be the same?

Everything is easier with DPS outside epics, why epics shouldnt be the same?

You see, mechanics like AC, DPS, Insta Kills are part of the game as a whole. Why should they be excluded in end game?

Crippling mechanics to fit new content is the best indicator of poor planing/thinking.

---

+1

Epic should be harder than elite - but if dps matters in epics - AC should to, just less than on elite.

But less should not mean zero usefulness.

A barb requires at worst a few items. A big weapon and hp items.

An AC build requires 10x the planning and gear and slot juggling - so in fact they should be BETTER than a straight up dps barb at surviving high level content - because AC is harder to get.

The game is broken, and not everyone wants a 'barb tank and healers' raid setup as has been the trend for quite some time now. 'Hit points and dps, dont care about tactics or any other builds'.

+1 to trying to make AC useful but not overpowering on epics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grodon9999

Don't get me wrong, i don't mind a mob being hard to hit as long as it makes sense. An ogre in a loin-clothe? Come on . . .

What do you have in mind for bosses? keep in mind with flanking bonuses, ID, Exhaustion, Sunder, we're gonna hit them on a 2 anyway unless the ACs are raised to such a stupid high level that it knocks anything that isn't a Kensai out of the running.

We also have to grind the **** for the gear to get our to-hits high enough, a capped 20 with no gear isn't going to hit everything on a 2, he might be hitting that bigtop wench on a 14. if your'e gonna make it so we have to wear Raven's sight, Gem of many facets, Epic Spectral gloves, and a bard to hit stuff reliably you've just knocked anyone who doesn't have that stuff back to the Inspired Quarter.

In PnP back in the day hitting and opponent was a much bigger deal as it is here, but they had the same HP as you and same damage-avoidance abilities. a 1000 HP tank versus a 500,000 HP boss . . . I don't think you can compare the two at all.

---

Exactly.

High level pnp players were meant to be 'epic'. Not 'dead in 2 seconds meatbags'.

Sure MMO play is different - but monster stats vs player stats are already absurd, trying to 'make players and monsters use equal to hit' is silly.

Unless I get unlimited mana and even just 50k hp too - comparing the two equally is completely illogical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Riggs

+1

Epic should be harder than elite - but if dps matters in epics - AC should to, just less than on elite.

But less should not mean zero usefulness.

A barb requires at worst a few items. A big weapon and hp items.

An AC build requires 10x the planning and gear and slot juggling - so in fact they should be BETTER than a straight up dps barb at surviving high level content - because AC is harder to get.

The game is broken, and not everyone wants a 'barb tank and healers' raid setup as has been the trend for quite some time now. 'Hit points and dps, dont care about tactics or any other builds'.

+1 to trying to make AC useful but not overpowering on epics.

---

What is your justification here? Less on elite or epic? Why? Does dps matter on elite or epic? Do you think that an AC toon will be dominating an epic quest? What if 6 high ac toons ran though an epic quest without healer or caster etc? Does it matter? How much longer would it take them even if they could? Ac should be as relevant at all difficulties.

Edit: should dps be less relevant at different levels?

If they do end up testing different to hits then they need to be looking at alternatives to grazing as well. 45% of incoming damage even on a miss is garbage.

If they insist on inflicting ac with this sort of stuff its no wonder so few even bother trying. Grazing was the turing point in the death of AC.

If they must continue with this artificial means then:

Normal no graz
Hard on 19
Elite on 18
Epic on 17

Simple straight forward progression considering that monster to hit and damage is scaled already in those cases (though I don't believe they should be in game anyway).

15% on elite is a reasonalbe compremise to the garbage of 45% we get now.

That and combine with the iterative attack modifier by AD though perhaps scalling it further and we have a reasonable comprimise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noinfo

What is your justification here?

---

He has none. He wasted ages getting AC related gear and wants epic to be a joke for his AC related character.

Goes as far as to say its "easy" to build a proper DPS barb taht can tank on epic. Which is ludicrous.

Gear needed to get top DPS is FAR harder to get then top AC gear simply because the demand is so much higher.

Last time I checked the sirens ward set scrolls weren't selling for 30 red scales like the marilith chain.

DPS can be balanced against by simply upping hitpoints.
AC can't be balanced against. It's too limiting a system.

And I'm really tied of the "only barbairans can tank" utter nonsense. Currently the best tanks are by far favoured souls. They can get 800+ hitpoints, sustain incredible DPS for a long period of time, and have top saves and top surivival in the game period.
Same for clerics, tho they lack a bit in hitpoints and saves.
Bbns may be 3rd best tanks at best, and just barely.

Defender Ftrs and Pal get a massive +20% hp this patch, while barbs get nerfed very slightly (-40 nerfed PL, +15 fixed PL = -25 net HP loss). Well built ones should match barbs hitpoints, and only be very slightly behind in DPS.

So theres definetely a huge variety of strong epic tank classes.

Yea your 8 con, max dex/max wis 100 AC monk isn't one of them. Too bad reroll and play something less broken that possible to balance against.

They nerfed the grizz years ago, get used to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shade

He has none. He wasted ages getting AC related gear and wants epic to be a joke for his AC related character.

Goes as far as to say its "easy" to build a proper DPS barb taht can tank on epic. Which is ludicrous.

Gear needed to get top DPS is FAR harder to get then top AC gear simply because the demand is so much higher.

Last time I checked the sirens ward set scrolls weren't selling for 30 red scales like the marilith chain.

DPS can be balanced against by simply upping hitpoints.
AC can't be balanced against. It's too limiting a system.

And I'm really tied of the "only barbairans can tank" utter nonsense. Currently the best tanks are by far favoured souls. They can get 800+ hitpoints, sustain incredible DPS for a long period of time, and have top saves and top surivival in the game period.
Same for clerics, tho they lack a bit in hitpoints and saves.
Bbns may be 3rd best tanks at best, and just barely.

Defender Ftrs and Pal get a massive +20% hp this patch, while barbs get nerfed very slightly (-40 nerfed PL, +15 fixed PL = -25 net HP loss). Well built ones should match barbs hitpoints, and only be very slightly behind in DPS.

So theres definetely a huge variety of strong epic tank classes.

Yea your 8 con, max dex/max wis 100 AC monk isn't one of them. Too bad reroll and play something less broken that possible to balance against.

They nerfed the grizz years ago, get used to it.

---

LOL sorry shade, I guess you missed the part where I agreed that AC should be completely relevant in Epics not just less than elite.

Seriously why should you or I care if he has a 100 AC 8 con str monk? You know already in epics that
A. They are probably not going to hit.
B. When they hit they will do 0 damage
C. Even if they get hit on a 20 that will be a significant part of their hp they have to heal anyway.
D. Even if they could solo it would take them a Week to do it.

But if they enjoy that build who are you or I to say its wrong and should not rate?

As for gearing an AC toon he has it spot on, they are harder to gear. Epic maralith chanin is probably the only piece of dps gear that will take longer and in some cases (not all) the same as chattering ring for ac melee.

Yes there is more competition but when you talk about paying 20+ reds for a scroll to get the resources for that is not overly difficult once you decide that is what you want to get.

This difference becomes noticiable when you compare an average geared ac build to a average geared dps. To get your final gear set up probably takes the same amount of time however, since I would assume that final gear set up on all would be epic gear [edit: it is on my ac and dps toons]. The difference is that in top level content the dps gear in there matters more and this is wrong.