Combat & PC armor class

[Mulu]

I play a light armor user with Tumble AC. It's not really an unintended consequence .

Getting the AC boost with heavy armor is the unintended consequence, as I assume you wouldn't get the benefit in PnP. In other words, it's a coding oversight. You should get no AC boost from Tumble if wearing medium or heavy armor, IMO.

Bear in mind we're talking about hitting this from multiple directions at once - the tower shield for the fighter/cleric/tank mold, tumble for the monks, rogues, and multiclasses, and it ends up being in reasonably similar numbers.

Tower -> large is only one point of AC. Tumble can easily be more. I thought the idea was to make heavy armor undesireable as well, by making it slow you down.

Small tweaks to base classes, the people who'd get hit hardest are the inane multiclass combos trying to game things.

Actually the people who *always* get hit the hardest are the rp'ers who do not try to game things and end up being even weaker than they were before. This is a general rule: Rules to prevent PG'ing hurt rp'ers more than PG'ers. If I recall correctly, my rogue/ranger has an AC of 10 + 4 for magic studded + 3 for dex + 1 for Tumble = 18. That's with two magic items, +1 armor and a +1 to dex item. Nuke Tumble, and she's at 17, without trying to "game" anything. Thanks.

I guess I have a hard time seeing "learning curve" as a justfication for wild imbalance.

"Wild imbalance" = straw man. As it stands now, the system is balanced, it's just balanced at a high power level. What you are trying to do is rebalance it at a lower power level, but the problems of any rebalancing is a failure to take into account all of the effects, and increasing the complexity of the game, i.e. the learning curve necessary to make the PC you want. I've thought about rolling up a cleric, but I really don't want to bother to learn what ALFA did to the clerical spheres. I went with classes that seem to have been changed the least, and I doubt I'll pursue a PrC. Not only do I not want to bother to learn about the changes, I don't trust that they were done intelligently. I'll do the same in NWN2.

Maybe it matters more to other people, and we could certainly change around expertise and improved expertise to have BAB requirements preventing them from being acquired at the low levels - seeing as they're not really part of a feat tree.

Do you really see a lot of expertise fighters out there who are getting ahead faster than others? In other words, is this really a problem, or just a perception?

It's tough to call it an exploit, because it's not just heavy or medium armor that limits it. Encumberance (of which NWN runs a decidedly weaker model), nor do we have the fight-defensively alternates to make it a better ability. Or what about my character who's basically a leather-wearing scout, but who can strap on the plate if you suddenly need a tank? As it is, by and large, I'd leave Tumble as it is, though might look for a way to top out the AC improvement at +1 at 5 ranks, or maybe even at 10 ranks.

Then why bother to mess with it at all? You have to be 12th level to have 15 ranks, at which point you *should* have an extra point of AC.

This is my underlying point. Only make those changes that are absolutely necessary, and make sure you take all consequences into account. If ALFA is offended by the tower shield, fine, eliminate them. If Tumble is being used as an AC add by PC's wearing medium or heavy armor, then look for a way to eliminate the Tumble AC bonus when wearing medium or heavy armor. In other words, make sure your fixes only hit the intended target, and don't screw other people.

[AlmightyTDawg]

Small tweaks to base classes, the people who'd get hit hardest are the inane multiclass combos trying to game things.

Actually the people who *always* get hit the hardest are the rp'ers who do not try to game things and end up being even weaker than they were before. This is a general rule: Rules to prevent PG'ing hurt rp'ers more than PG'ers. If I recall correctly, my rogue/ranger has an AC of 10 + 4 for magic studded + 3 for dex + 1 for Tumble = 18. That's with two magic items, +1 armor and a +1 to dex item. Nuke Tumble, and she's at 17, without trying to "game" anything. Thanks.

Which is, a single point, as I said a small tweak. Plus, my recommendation has evolved to +1 to AC being the Tumble maxout, so in likelihood you wouldn't be affected. Who would be strongly be effected are characters with 15 ranks of tumble using tower shields who'd take a 3-point hit. Hence my comment. I still think it holds.

I guess I have a hard time seeing "learning curve" as a justfication for wild imbalance.

"Wild imbalance" = straw man.

Man, you're not arguing with Kalbar here. I believe the total result of all of those the things under discussion is a wild imbalance. I believe learning curve is the only valid argument you've got. Therefore I think the two are measured against one another.

You're welcome to compare the numbers I cited on page 2 with ALFA expectations and actual numbers, but I believe very strongly we're well out of balance here. This is my personal assessment, not rewriting anyone's argument or setting up a weak argument. You mentioned learning curve as a reason not to make changes. You're not arguing canon correctness, you're not arguing any of the individual changes really. I don't think that's powerful measured against the level of imbalance. You're welcome to disagree.

As it stands now, the system is balanced, it's just balanced at a high power level. What you are trying to do is rebalance it at a lower power level, but the problems of any rebalancing is a failure to take into account all of the effects, and increasing the complexity of the game, i.e. the learning curve necessary to make the PC you want.

Now, there are static mobs who have similarly been tweaked to compensate for such characters. But, as your AC numbers and say most characters out of Shadowdale or Daggerdale would indicate, by no means is ALFA entirely balanced to this high number. So, when you match up PCs from varying areas, you do get imbalances. Some of them are excessive, or in my parlance, wild.

With regard to the learning curve necessary to make the PC you want, we're very particular in what's targeted. It's those things which are obvious minmax solutions with dramatic results.

I've thought about rolling up a cleric, but I really don't want to bother to learn what ALFA did to the clerical spheres. I went with classes that seem to have been changed the least, and I doubt I'll pursue a PrC. Not only do I not want to bother to learn about the changes, I don't trust that they were done intelligently. I'll do the same in NWN2.

It's tough to take the rhetoric terribly seriously when you assert that fundamentally you think all changes will be done poorly. A number of people have made some pretty compelling cases why the changes made by BW long ago were unbalanced, and that's largely what tends to be under discussion.

I'll agree that our "Player's Handbook" is weak for describing those changes for players. But fundamentally, the tweaks are moderately easy to describe. And it is possible to improve that. But to assert it's all done poorly is just to take the skeptic's way out of the conversation.

Maybe it matters more to other people, and we could certainly change around expertise and improved expertise to have BAB requirements preventing them from being acquired at the low levels - seeing as they're not really part of a feat tree.

Do you really see a lot of expertise fighters out there who are getting ahead faster than others? In other words, is this really a problem, or just a perception?

I've counted about five PCs personally in my limited experience in ALFA. I've also run the combat simulations proving the point. It's not that the feat isn't valuable, it certainly is, but its value is relevant as level increases, as it was intended to be.

This is my underlying point. Only make those changes that are absolutely necessary, and make sure you take all consequences into account. If ALFA is offended by the tower shield, fine, eliminate them. If Tumble is being used as an AC add by PC's wearing medium or heavy armor, then look for a way to eliminate the Tumble AC bonus when wearing medium or heavy armor. In other words, make sure your fixes only hit the intended target, and don't screw other people.

There is a notable issue in how do you back down things in an existing campaign, particularly when DMs have their own habits that's tough to break. However, break points like say the NWN2 campaign would make a point where you can make that change, universally, with a vault wipe, and not significantly impact.

Also take under advisement the kinds of things that we're talking about; tower shield is a single point (or 25 lbs extra encumberance for all you bulging biceps mofos) and perhaps 1 or 2 pts of Tumble are all small tweaks to various concepts. But, and what's most important, is that they're aimed at taking it "out of the top" as alluded to much earlier.

[Mulu]

recommendation has evolved to +1 to AC being the Tumble maxout, so in likelihood you wouldn't be affected. Who would be strongly be effected are characters with 15 ranks of tumble using tower shields who'd take a 3-point hit. Hence my comment. I still think it holds.

Assuming it's possible, I'd still rather see a zeroing out of Tumble AC with medium or heavy armor, rather than something that hits everyone. Maybe using the way Monk and Ranger abilities are limited by armor would be an approach by making a new skill that accomplishes the goal and is tied to armor worn. Another option is to limit the Tumble skill to Rangers, Rogues, Monks and Bards, though obviously multiclassing can get around that to some extent.

I believe the total result of all of those [] things under discussion is a wild imbalance. I believe learning curve is the only valid argument you've got. Therefore I think the two are measured against one another.

I see three counter arguments. 1. Learning Curve, which applies to any change. 2. Expectations of heroism, which is something to consider with any nerf, especially *multiple* nerfs that all effect the same thing. 3. Unintended consequences / true balancing, which also applies to any change, since not all effects are always apparent. And I'll add a fourth, 4. Actually accomplishing goal, since there are multiclassing workarounds available. If natural armor amulets become rare, potions of barkskin and plant domain clerics become common.

You're not arguing canon correctness, you're not arguing any of the individual changes really. I don't think that's powerful measured against the level of imbalance. You're welcome to disagree.

Well, admittedly I don't really care about canon correctness, but actually I'm agreeing with a lot of the changes. Go ahead and nuke tower shields, simply remove them entirely from the game. Large shields are good enough. Eliminate dodge AC boots too, make them verboten, or only wearable by monks, and add a bunch of useless extra powers like 10% weight so UMD can't kick in easily. Amulets of natural armor, sure, strike them too. Make them use potions/spells. Tumble? Well, that shouldn't apply to tanks, so try to remake it so it doesn't work in medium/heavy armor. Expertise? Seems like overkill, especially if you do the others. It's a matter of degree.

Now, there are static mobs who have similarly been tweaked to compensate for such characters.

The tweak should have been to zap their xp and loot, not make them more lethal. Alternatively, make them more lethal by increasing their types of attacks, as (Fionn?) suggested earlier, with ranged touch attacks that ignore AC. You are using a single example to defend a system-wide change.

when you match up PCs from varying areas, you do get imbalances.

That's another issue altogether. Besides, even groups of PC's from the same area will have widely divergent survivability. My PC is a "citizen of the world."

With regard to the learning curve necessary to make the PC you want, we're very particular in what's targeted. It's those things which are obvious minmax solutions with dramatic results.

*All* of those min/max solutions can and are also used by normal PC's, so again you are not just reducing the min/maxers, you are reducing everyone, and therefore the imbalance largely remains. No matter what system you come up with, there will always be a "best path" and anyone who doesn't follow it will be weaker.

It's tough to take the rhetoric terribly seriously when you assert that fundamentally you think all changes will be done poorly.

ALFA has a lot of bad rules....

A number of people have made some pretty compelling cases why the changes made by BW long ago were unbalanced, and that's largely what tends to be under discussion.

Won't dispute that BW also screwed up.

I'll agree that our "Player's Handbook" is weak for describing those changes for players. But fundamentally, the tweaks are moderately easy to describe. And it is possible to improve that. But to assert it's all done poorly is just to take the skeptic's way out of the conversation.

It's just a voice of caution. Again, I agreed with most of your proposed nerfs.

I've counted about five PCs personally in my limited experience in ALFA. I've also run the combat simulations proving the point. It's not that the feat isn't valuable, it certainly is, but its value is relevant as level increases, as it was intended to be.

Given the low hp's of 1st-2nd level characters, I see the expertise feat as a helpful means of survival. One greataxe crit can kill pretty much any PC under third level. Most ALFA PC's die before reaching 4th from what I hear. Seems to me that reducing low level survivability is a bad idea, especially when it costs them a feat to improve it.

break points like say the NWN2 campaign would make a point where you can make that change, universally, with a vault wipe, and not significantly impact.

It's still significant if it affects gameplay, even if it is part of a new start.

Also take under advisement the kinds of things that we're talking about; tower shield is a single point (or 25 lbs extra encumberance for all you bulging biceps mofos) and perhaps 1 or 2 pts of Tumble are all small tweaks to various concepts. But, and what's most important, is that they're aimed at taking it "out of the top" as alluded to much earlier.

But they don't just apply "at the top" they apply along the entire spectrum. That's my point. You can't nerf something and then say it will only apply to min/maxers, that's simply false. Everyone's survivability will be diminished. And it isn't just a couple of points of AC.

TS +1, dodge +1, Tumble +1, NA +1, Expertise +5 = 9 points of AC on the sacrificial altar, assuming I didn't miss anything. You better be sure it's worth it.

[Fionn]

I wonder if it is possible to tie in the Tumble AC bonus to the same mechanism that limits the ranger psuedo-feats in med/heavy armor?

[Ronan]

"Wild imbalance" = straw man. As it stands now, the system is balanced, it's just balanced at a high power level. What you are trying to do is rebalance it at a lower power level, but the problems of any rebalancing is a failure to take into account all of the effects, and increasing the complexity of the game, i.e. the learning curve necessary to make the PC you want.

Read back a bit. The system is not even close to balanced, especially across servers. Many high-powered ALFA PCs could easily roll over "powerfull" canon "boss" NPCs of equal level without batting much of an eye. Current ALFA PCs, as a whole, are not balanced to the Forgotten Realms campaign setting. This is the issue, and none other.

On some servers, mob strength is increased to counteract the higher power of PCs. On other servers, mobs are left canon. The result is more magic is needed on the more difficult servers, and PCs from there are frequently much more powerfull than others. Sure, we could leave all mobs canon, but then PCs would often roll over them, and the risk of farming increases.

Actually the people who *always* get hit the hardest are the rp'ers who do not try to game things and end up being even weaker than they were before. This is a general rule: Rules to prevent PG'ing hurt rp'ers more than PG'ers. If I recall correctly, my rogue/ranger has an AC of 10 + 4 for magic studded + 3 for dex + 1 for Tumble = 18. That's with two magic items, +1 armor and a +1 to dex item. Nuke Tumble, and she's at 17, without trying to "game" anything. Thanks.

No, crappy rules to prevent PGing hurt RPers more Under the proposed system, you'd loose one point of AC, to 17. A full-plate large shield fighter with similar items would have an AC of 23. So your rogue/ranger would have 6 less AC than an armored tank, less if she used a shield. Where is the problem here?

Seems close to spot-on to me,

Class.....................Lvl5.........Lvl10.........Lvl15.........Lvl20
Fighter...................21.............24.............28.............34
Ranger...................17............18.............23.............25

The result of this "sacrifice" would be a reduction in the need for jacked-up mobs. So you could do battle with a tribe of goblins on DF or SD and be reasonably sure they don't have 4 class levels of barbarian, or whatever. Try that now, and see what happens. Me, I'd think my PC would be much safer loosing a point of AC if it ment he wouldn't accidentally attack an "average" goblin which turned out to be CR4.

But they don't just apply "at the top" they apply along the entire spectrum. That's my point. You can't nerf something and then say it will only apply to min/maxers, that's simply false. Everyone's survivability will be diminished. And it isn't just a couple of points of AC.

They are ment to go along the entire spectrum. The entire spectrum of ALFA PCs tends to have more AC than the FRCS is designed for. But "at the top" he ment those last few points of AC which make such a dramatic difference on to-hit rates. But reducing the availability of dodge and natural does hurt the min-maxers trying to get AC of each type more than anyone else. It reduces the complexity and quirks of the system which PGing takes advantage of.

Believe it or not, there are quite a few ALFAns who refuse to use tower shields because of the encubrance they should have ICly. If you consider these your good RPers, it does not hurt them at all.

[Rusty]

(1) ALFA PCs fight more than PnP PCs.

(2) ALFA PCs get less XP from combat than PnP PCs.

(3) ALFA PCs do not always have a DM around to (a) fudge combat rolls (b) permit innovative combat tactics (i.e. NWN is less flexible than PnP)

(4) ALFA PCs need to have a higher AC than PnP PCs.

[Ronan]

(1) ALFA PCs fight more than PnP PCs.

Thats their choice. ALFA PCs currently also face more powerfull monsters than PnP PCs would, in general.

(2) ALFA PCs get less XP from combat than PnP PCs.

They wouldn't have to get less XP, if they weren't so much more powerfull than canon monsters which were supposed to challenge them.

(3) ALFA PCs do not always have a DM around to (a) fudge combat rolls (b) permit innovative combat tactics (i.e. NWN is less flexible than PnP)

This is much more in favor of the PCs than the monsters, believe me.

(4) ALFA PCs need to have a higher AC than PnP PCs.

They also have considerably more hit points, and face much dumber monsters.

So do we re-balance the setting, like servers such as DF have done, making all mobs considerably more powerfull? Or do we leave it as is, with each server taking a different perspective? Or do we leave all the NPCs canon, despite the ease PCs will dispatch them? I'd prefer to balance the PCs to the campaign setting rather than vise-versa.

[yavanion]

#1... Yes Clerics is a powerfull class, but playing a cleric/druid as a PC comes with a mission to work for the "diety" you serve... as a DM you can allways drop diety related tasks on the PC, but thankfully most magic spells will be nerfed in 3.5... And honestly people NOT dedicating time to being a faithfull servant of their deity should be forced to rebuild or change character, using cleric/druid/paladin to get "bonuses" is cheating !

#2... Iwe said this before, some spells was not intended to be used as they are, and with magic gone common in alfa, and we got characters with wery high AC, some spells just crippel the system ewen more, stoneskin *sigh* stoneskin... When then monster finally hits, the damage is absorbed, read the players handbook and implement the component cost... then DMs dont need to escalate things, and people the do not min/max wont be punished by alfa !

[Rusty]

(1) ALFA PCs fight more than PnP PCs.

Thats their choice.

Not necessarily. It is also the DM's choice.
Combat is also slow in PnP; it is fast in NWN. This will affect how often it occurs, and how deadly it is.
No combat is only possible if a PC never strays from their Inn-seat.

(3) ALFA PCs do not always have a DM around to (a) fudge combat rolls (b) permit innovative combat tactics (i.e. NWN is less flexible than PnP)

This is much more in favor of the PCs than the monsters, believe me.

Yes, this is the case. However, there is a fundamental difference between a PC dying and a monster dying.

4) ALFA PCs need to have a higher AC than PnP PCs.

They also have considerably more hit points, and face much dumber monsters.

So do we re-balance the setting, like servers such as DF have done, making all mobs considerably more powerfull? Or do we leave it as is, with each server taking a different perspective? Or do we leave all the NPCs canon, despite the ease PCs will dispatch them?

High ACs keep PCs alive, and PCs can only roleplay when they are alive. If you want your PC to be able to do more than roleplay simply sitting in an Inn you need survivability that can come only through Stealth, Toughness, or Powerful Friends.

The biggest flaw in the DF approach is the lack of visual clues to the strength of the mob. This problem is avoidable with NWN, and will even easier to avoid in NWN2. However, I think the NPC issue is more important than the mob issue. There is a vast enough range of CRs to present all ACs with a challenge without making every kobold archer, arcane. However, why shouldn't a level six fighter adventurer pose a serious problem to town guards? Maybe they ought to go and ask the local wizard for help in order to deal with this drunken menace? Maybe they wait till he's asleep in his room and burst down the door and smother him? There are more creative solutions to problems than simply battering a PC with fifteen pimps with halberds.

Isn't this inflationary trend inevitable in a three-year-old PW, and will it not diminish upon NWN2's year zero?

[Ronan]

High ACs keep PCs alive, and PCs can only roleplay when they are alive. If you want your PC to be able to do more than roleplay simply sitting in an Inn you need survivability that can come only through Stealth, Toughness, or Powerful Friends.

Agreed, though I don't see how this proposal makes survival any more difficult. If anything, I'd say the survival of lower-level PCs is increased due to how much weaker canon creatures are. Lowbies don't have access to the AC-inflating items that higher level PCs do. Its only the higher levels who I think will be hurt by this, as they will not be able to reach that "goal" of having an AC 20 higher than an oponents AB as easily.

The goal is to move AC closer to what its supposed to be in FR. The result of that (looking at the table T posted, the notable NPCs, etc) is that high level PCs would have a lower AC, mid levels a bit lower, and that lowbies would be mostly unchanged. As a result, DMs could use basemod canon mobs with little worry their players would breeze through them.

The biggest flaw in the DF approach is the lack of visual clues to the strength of the mob. This problem is avoidable with NWN, and will even easier to avoid in NWN2.

Agreed with the visual cues, but I'd say the biggest flaw in DF's approach is that there simply aren't that many powerfull creatures in DF in the FR setting.

However, I think the NPC issue is more important than the mob issue. There is a vast enough range of CRs to present all ACs with a challenge without making every kobold archer, arcane. However, why shouldn't a level six fighter adventurer pose a serious problem to town guards? Maybe they ought to go and ask the local wizard for help in order to deal with this drunken menace? Maybe they wait till he's asleep in his room and burst down the door and smother him? There are more creative solutions to problems than simply battering a PC with fifteen pimps with halberds.

More than being a serious problem, a level 6 adventurer in full plate with a tower shield and some AC items is nigh-invencible to 2 dozen war1 guards. And he can outrun all of them, too.

Isn't this inflationary trend inevitable in a three-year-old PW, and will it not diminish upon NWN2's year zero?

Well, ideally we could work it out so there isn't any inflation, and that AC would rise with level as is desired.

Here is the breakdown, as I see it,
Currently we could have a heavy armor, tower shield fighter at levels,
1: Armor AC 6, +1 dex, +3 shield = 20
5: Armor AC 10, +1 dex, +4 shield, +1 deflect = 26
10: Armor AC 11, +1 dex, +5 shield, +2 deflect, +1 dodge, +1 natural = 31
15: Armor AC 12, +1 dex, +6 shield, +3 deflect, +2 dodge, +2 natural = 36

Closer to PnP, we ditch the tower shield and the dodge item, and opt for medium armor to cut back on the movement penalty. In response, the player ditches heavy armor in favor of a breastplate, and gets dex bonus items in place of dodge boots. As a side bonus, he's better with a bow and has much less armor check penalties.
1: Armor AC 5, +2 dex, +2 shield = 19
5: Armor AC 6, +3 dex, +3 shield, +1 deflect = 23
10: Armor AC 7, +3 dex, +4 shield, +2 deflect, +1 natural = 27
15: Armor AC 8, +3 dex, +5 shield, +3 deflect, +2 natural = 30

The differences are 1, 3, 4, 5 at each level mentioned, respectively. Not exactly an earth-shattering difference, but those last few points change a lot when dealing with weaker mobs, as T has shown. Together with canon mobs instead of jacked-up ones, I don't see how this effects PC survival at low and mid levels at all.

I really hope we can find some ways to add some realism to medium/heavy armor wearers other than restricting movement rates (too many problems doing that). Maybe some sort of fatigue system. It doesn't even have to be any sort of significant, nerf, but just something to offer a bit of tangible realism. If we can get enhancement bonuses on bows (which we can do now, but hopefully NWN2 will include it as default), I hope more dexterity-oriented fighters will be viable options to a heavy-armor wearer.

[Dorn]

However, why shouldn't a level six fighter adventurer pose a serious problem to town guards? Maybe they ought to go and ask the local wizard for help in order to deal with this drunken menace? Maybe they wait till he's asleep in his room and burst down the door and smother him? There are more creative solutions to problems than simply battering a PC with fifteen pimps with halberds.

My god...i agree with Rusty. *goes and scrubs himself in a shower with the music from the Crying Game playing*

That being said it doesn't address the problem of static spawns without DMs on.

And in all this discussion we have lost track of the original point and got too caught up in the class v class debate instead of trying to bring PCs down to a realistic level of AC to allow canon spawns.

I HONESTLY think that the ONLY way to do this is for DMs to be more careful about what they hand out as rewards, how they use IC methods to reduce over-wealthy PCs (or those with too many items) and how they make players with min/maxed stats play them.

This will:
a) reduce the huge magic bonus' to AC (especially once items with bonus' like dex become non-stackable...does this apply to skills as well?)
b) remove mistakes from other DMs
c) make peopel feel the pinch for maxing dext etc for AC bonus

I agree with Yvanion and Rusty in that IC RP should be prevelent in how we address issues. Favouratism should not play a part...i've seen senior DMs get shitty about not getting their stacked uber over wealth limit items so PA and DMA should support Dms totally in IC methods to reduce wealth and hence items.

If DMs show the initiative and keep wealth levels low then canon spawns will be fine. I can onyl speak from experieince that when we played on TRL as an small insular group that never went off server we didn't see any real magic till about level 5 or so (first +1 armour at level 6) and were constantly broke. When people went off server and returned or migrated tot TLR suddenly items were everywhere. If the whole of ALFA had been like TLR (as in borgia and kiran based it on TVS) then this wouldn't be a problem IMO.

PCs have similar AC to minor deities at mid level is testament to the trend of alfa towards 'high risk high reward'. This strategy is a vicious circle as the equipment/magic items from one who dies often does not go out of circulation but is picked up by others so in the end the rewards outwiegh the risks within a pool of PCs.

DMs have control of this, and Admin have a responsibility to support DMs who maintain the (formerly) low magic/moderate progression/high RP ideal of ALFA. Admin also have a responsibility to ensure that any areas of wealth or magic booms are tied up asap as with PCs moving around it impacts on other servers and areas (and i dont juts mean exploits).

If common sense was applied and DMs managed the situation properly then perhaps the need for coding could be avoided as AC would naturaly be kept down at low levels where full plate is a rarity and magic (AC, dext, tumble etc) even moreso.

[Ronan]

I HONESTLY think that the ONLY way to do this is for DMs to be more careful about what they hand out as rewards, how they use IC methods to reduce over-wealthy PCs (or those with too many items) and how they make players with min/maxed stats play them.

I think it would be easier to rewrite the whole combat engine from the ground up that it would be to change people's behavior. In my experience, you can't count on common sense.

At any rate, by removing discrete sources of AC, you are removing PG opportunities. The pure PGer wants to divide his AC items amung armor, shield, dodge, natural and deflection. The pure RPer's PC wouldn't know to actively seek out each different type of AC, and is more likely to only have the commonly-dropped types of deflection, armor and shield. By removing a type of AC, you've effectively reduced the options of the pure PGer without causing much change to the pure RPer at all. PGing thrive on rules and complexities, and we would effectively reduce the complexity of the system. Imagine a system with 15 types of AC versus 1, and how each system might favor RPers or PGers.

And while there are more creative solutions than pwning a PC with two dozen guards, they aren't always available. Local wizards may have more reason to be wary of adventurers than a guard would (they know some of the magic adventurers can carry), and if its a small town would probably not be very high level.

[JspecWip]

This doesn't mean small town guards should be lvl3 fighters with items that boost their AC and AB, and even if a Pc killed them wouldn't be able to get said Item.

*EVERY THING* must be balanced per pnp IMO, for any balancing to work.

The only reasons guards would come up to a drunk Pc were if they were posessed by a Dm anyway, its up to the DM to come up with how the 5 war1's are going to stop him. Otherwise the PC is just abusing the system if he's killing guards w/no DM on. Look at the logs and boom goes the ban gun.

#2... Iwe said this before, some spells was not intended to be used as they are, and with magic gone common in alfa, and we got characters with wery high AC, some spells just crippel the system ewen more, stoneskin *sigh* stoneskin... When then monster finally hits, the damage is absorbed, read the players handbook and implement the component cost...

This is a steller point, spell component costs should be included in this system.

As is now mages/clerics see mobs a short distance away and just buff up, then summon then destroy. Add in the offensive toll of sleep and other low level spells on mobs and its much easier to kill a group for a magic using class than a mellee class.

The buffs done to a character can make them invincible much easier than a few points of AC at the top. I realize magic is part of D&D and FR but this has more effect on making PC's uber than anything.

All of the proposed solutions effect only mellee based classes, something must be done to make magic users less uber as well.

And if Alfa is to be a verry low magic world then why aren't the mage classes treated as if they should be verry rare? aka almost like a prestige class?

[Overfilled Cup]

I find the monsters in ALFA incredibly hard to hit at low levels and they always seem to hit me.

[Ronan]

The only reasons guards would come up to a drunk Pc were if they were posessed by a Dm anyway, its up to the DM to come up with how the 5 war1's are going to stop him. Otherwise the PC is just abusing the system if he's killing guards w/no DM on. Look at the logs and boom goes the ban gun.

Well, its not just guards. Eliminating the population of a goblin tribe's cave, lets say. Anything with lots of low-AB monsters.

As is now mages/clerics see mobs a short distance away and just buff up, then summon then destroy. Add in the offensive toll of sleep and other low level spells on mobs and its much easier to kill a group for a magic using class than a mellee class.

Assuming they see the mobs, and the mobs don't attack them while they are doing this? If so thats more of an AI problem, and those mobs should be given long perception ranges and/or spawn in stealth. Try that on one of BG's wyverns, and the mage will likely not spot the beast until it lands next to him, stings him with a STR poison that prevents him from escaping, then kills him.

The buffs done to a character can make them invincible much easier than a few points of AC at the top. I realize magic is part of D&D and FR but this has more effect on making PC's uber than anything.

Well, stoneskin and the like are powerfull spells, and yes, there are buffs that make PCs uber for short periods of time. But such spells are only the only abilities of sorcerers and mages, they've got nothing else. Once they are out of spells, they are push-overs. I would agree that clerics are a bit stronger than is reasonable, though.

All of the proposed solutions effect only mellee based classes, something must be done to make magic users less uber as well.

They don't, they effect the AC of every class. Mages don't rely on AC, true, but try to get a mage to a decent level in ALFA before calling them so uber. At higher levels they can be very powerfull in short, intense fights, but are nearly useless in long, drawn-out conflicts. Once they use their spells, they have nothing. And if they can't predict what they are going to face and conserve/select their spells accordingly, they loose a big advantage as well. At any rate, 3.5 nerfs all spellcasters already.

And if Alfa is to be a verry low magic world then why aren't the mage classes treated as if they should be verry rare? aka almost like a prestige class?

Well, FR isn't very low magic by any stretch of the imagination. But magic is very rare amung common folk. Its valuable, rare, and therefore horded by people with power. Its not uncommon amung adventurers.