Jason_the_Iguana: Not entirely: at higher levels, the difference
is smaller in some cases. If you're attacked by something with 1 attack per round that hits on a 19 and you get an extra point of AC, the damage you suffer goes down by 50%. Instead of 0.1 hit per round, 0.05.
If something with 3 attacks hits you on a 19 with the first attack and you get an extra AC, the damage suffered goes down by only 25%. From 0.2 hits per round to 0.15. Only... a 25% reduction is
still pretty huge, so it remains very important.
Well...
1, you're adding in number of attacks per round which I did not. With the same number of attacks per round my statement holds true -- one attack at 2 AB versus 12 AC is the same as one attack at 12 AB versus 22 AC.
2, one attack per round skews it in *both* directions. If the enemy has one attack at 29 AB versus my 30 AC, then going to 31 AC is barely a 5% decrease in damage taken (0.95 -> 0.9). On the flip side, if that enemy has 4 attacks then we're looking at 0.95/0.7/0.45/0.2 = 2.3 vs 0.9/0.65/0.4/0.15 -> 2.1, or nearly a 9% decrease.
Jason_the_Iguana: I furthermore thought that the effect of AC would go down once you face enemies that can hit you more easily. At lower levels, this is actually true. Going from being hit on a 9 to being hit on an 10 only reduces the damage suffered by 8.4% (0.60 hits a round vs 0.55) But when facing something with 3 attacks, the damage goes down by 16% (0.95 hits average vs 0.80) because the AC now also helps against subsequent attacks.
I'd point out that even 8.4% is pretty huge -- I doubt people would turn away a piece of gear that said "take 8.4% less physical damage" because it's too small of a difference or something.
Jason_the_Iguana: Same dynamic applies to AB, of course. It's easy to think "I don't need 1 more AB, I'm hitting anyway." Yeah, with your first attack. Third and fourth, not so much.
Let's just say I'll reconsider the value of the Weapon Focus feat now.
Yes, (Epic) Weapon Focus and feats like Epic Prowess are extremely valuable. That said, even if you're hitting 80% of the time on your first (and only) attack gaining 1 AB is still over a 5% damage increase -- and it's a multiplicative effect with damage per hit.
This is one reason why I generally hate modules which don't have reasonable weapon options and/or try to make people swap weapon types constantly especially in Epic levels -- losing 3 AB, 6 damage, and Improved Critical makes it very hard to do so without actually being worse off.
"Hmm, well, I have 25 AB with 26 damage per hit and 17-20/x2 for criticals against that enemy with 30 AC. That's 0.8/0.55/0.3/0.05 = 1.7 hpr which is 44.2 dpr and factor in criticals (20% increase) to get 53.04 dpr overall. But crap, that enemy is 50% immune to my weapon's damage type because reasons so that's only 26.52 dpr. I guess I'll need to swap to that featless weapon which leaves me with 22 AB, 20 damage, and 19-20/x2. Let's see...0.65/0.4/0.15/0.05 = 1.25 hpr which is 25 dpr and factor in criticals (10% increase) to get 27.5 dpr overall. So swapping weapons will gain me...3.7% increased damage. THIS FEELS LIKE A FUN AND REWARDING MECHANIC."
I really don't like the extremely specific weapon feats. I'd much prefer either no weapon specific feats or least make them weapon categories (like 1H vs 2H vs ranged or something).
Jason_the_Iguana: I suspect a part of what obfuscates things is that high-level characters tend to have many layers of defence. Both passive, like concealment and damage reduction, and active, as in stuff that stops the enemy from attacking you. (Disabling and debuffing spells, feats like Knockdown, or even good use of terrain to minimise the numbers of enemies attacking you at a time.)
Not only that, but most modules aren't even halfway tuned reasonably to the point where having 30% more damage and/or 30% more HP even matters -- you could do most/all modules without ever using rings or a helm, for example (just leave three equipment slots completely blank, no problem). And if you have effectively infinite Heal potions of top of that, it usually doesn't make a difference whether you drink a full heal every 30 seconds versus every 42 seconds...despite the fact that means you're taking 40% more damage (or have like 29% less health).
I actually had some significant complaining about my
Siege of the Heavens module initially (and I feared a repeat with
A Peremptory Summons but was pleasantly surprised -- maybe I scared away the problem people) -- because despite literally having a potion with infinite uses of full heal (I dislike pretense -- I find it hilarious when modules shower players with hundreds of thousands of gold and have default Heal potions available for a mere 2000 gold...but try to act like the players don't have effectively infinite healing), you actually needed a half-way reasonable character. If you tried to make a Wizard with 8 Con it would be extremely, extremely difficult (potentially impossible) not to die. If you made a super low DPS character some fights would take forever and/or be much harder (no, your Intelligence based fighter is not a special snowflake).
You might notice a discrepancy there -- I deliberately designed/tuned the module so that you didn't need to optimize your damage but your defenses do have to be reasonable. Part of that is due to defenses being more "standard" -- I can assume every Fighter is going to have 14 base Con, 400 base HP from class levels, wearing full plate, etc. They might have more defenses, of course (from feats/stats/multiclassing/etc) but they won't have less. Harder to assume what people will do for offense (and, as we've seen, a Fighter that takes Epic Weapon Focus will do massively more damage compared to one that doesn't). IIRC I think my bosses had 60 AC normally and a "reasonable" 40 Fighter would have 30 (BAB) + 18 (Str) + 6 (weapon AB) + 4 (feats) = 58 AB for about 0.95/0.7/0.45/0.2/0.95 = 3.25 hpr while one without EWF would get 0.8/0.55/0.3/0.05/0.8 = 2.5 hpr. The former is flat out doing 30% more than the latter (technically slightly more due to how confirming criticals works). Now imagine the latter didn't max out his strength via starting stats/leveling (maybe put more into Con or something), didn't take all 7 Great Strength feats, and/or had some other issues. We could easily get two level 40 Fighters using the same weapons who have a 50%+ damage discrepancy.
So I made the modules with the principle of you'd eventually win if you could survive...to a reasonable extent. For example, one boss summons adds who try to buff him and you need to kill those adds. The difference between those adds buffing the boss for 12 seconds vs 24 seconds is survivable. The difference between those adds buffing the boss for 12 seconds vs 60 seconds is not. The "penalty" for poor offense characters is some fights taking forever...but you can still win.
Oh, and to make something explicitly clear -- I designed/balanced the module around reasonable pure class characters (40 Fighter, 40 Rogue, 40 Cleric, 40 Druid, 40 Sorcerer, etc). Yes, that means a 12 Fighter/3 Rogue/25 WM can come in and wreck face compared to that 40 Fighter. But nothing I can do about that without overhauling the combat system (which I didn't want to do for that specific module) or leaving non-powergamed builds out.
Jason_the_Iguana: Of course that only adds to the balancing nightmare. There's such a huge difference between a "recommended" greatsword fighter and a customised fighter/bard/RDD with a shield that every fight will either be a pushover for the second or absolute suicide for the first. Modules usually err on the side of the former, because otherwise tons of players are excluded. But I don't envy them the effort it takes to try and balance this.
Indeed. With this issue specifically there is, thankfully, a relatively easy way to address the shield issue -- don't have shield AC scale up with levels. It's AC, it already scales. The downside is that it's less fun from a player perspective to use the same shield for 40 levels or something...but I'm not sure what can reasonably done about that without massive changes. I also have larger weapons get more damage bonuses. For example, you might see something like this...
Greatsword: 1d12 fire damage
Longsword: 1d8 fire damage
Short Sword: 1d6 fire damage
Dagger: 1d4 fire damage
Those two changes alone (along with some buffs to dual-wielding -- like flat out adding 2 AB to Dual-wielding in general (so no AB loss) and not penalizing for a "non-light" weapon in the offhand (so you could dual-wield long swords without penalty) helps make 2H vs 1H/Shield vs Dual-Wield far, far more balanced.
By default it is, frankly, stupid to not use a 1H/Shield as a Strength fighter. And if the module is so easy that it doesn't matter then...the module is so easy things don't mater in general, do whatever you want.