I think that finding ways to reduce the actual amount of damage one takes is vitally important in this game system, especially with the Massive Damage rules in effect.

So a good AR is, imo, slightly more important than have a good Fortitude defense, both of which are more important than AV.

Decios is pretty good in these areas.
His walking around AV is 25 (base 19, defense advancements 4, small shield 1, Defense rune 1). At Tier 3.3 it will go to 27 from another defense advancement.
Fortitude is 24 (base 19, defense advancements 4, Defense rune 1). At Tier 3.3 it will go to 26 from another defense advancement, to 27 at 3.4 when a stat gets raised.
Walking around AR is 6 (armor 4, Defense rune 1, Greaves of Stomping 1), usually raise this with a spell for +1 nat armor, and/or +2/3 Benediction from an ally.

To me, trying to get AV super high is chasing your own tail, minions frequently go north of 30 on attack rolls, so to me reducing things is more important and viable. Stamina can be restored pretty quickly, Wounds cannot. And using things like Defensive stance for get AV over 30 is situationally good, but the dump on the attack bonus hurts a lot and means you aren't hurting the opponent enough/consistently.

So if Decios is in a bad fight his AR could be 9, and his Fortitude 26. So a badguy would need to do 35+ damage to give him a wound. I think that is about appropriate for a early/mid T3 fight.

Having run the numbers, I'm not sure I agree. Which is surprising as my inclination was to lean towards AR as well.

Note: The numbers below do not take into account exploding dice, which leads to slightly higher average attack #s and slightly more damage.

Consider being attacked at 2d10+d8+5 (avg. 20.5) for d8(d10)+1 (11) damage. Your chance of getting hit at a 21 AV is 50/50. At a 23 AV it's 34.25%. Let's say its 6 AR vs. 4 AR (Benediction +2 Armor vs. AV)

Over 10 attacks the 21 AV/AR 6 averages (10*.5[hits])*(11-6[base damage)] = 25 points.
Over 10 attacks the 23 AV/AR 4 averages (10*.3425[hits])*(11-4[base damage)] = 23.975 points.

Roughly equivalent. Increase the AV by 1 and you get the following:

Over 10 attacks the 22 AV/6 AR averages (10*.42)*(11-6) = 21 damage, a decrease of 4.
Over 10 attacks the 24 AV/4 AR averages (10*.27)*(11-4) = 18.9 damage, a decrease of 5.

Going the other direction compared to the original (mid) numbers:
Over 10 attacks the 20 AV/AR 6 averages (10*.58)*(11-6) = 29 damage, an increase of 4 points.
Over 10 attacks the 22 AV/AR 4 averages (10*.42)*(11-4) = 29.4 damage, an increase of 5.5 points.

Changing the damage equation to d10(d12)+5 for 17 points on average nets the following in the same order:

20 AV/AR 6 averages (10*.58)*(17-6) = 63.8 damage
22 AV/AR 4 averages (10*.42)*(17-4) = 54.6 damage

21 AV/AR 6 averages (10*.5)*(17-6) = 55 damage
23 AV/AR 4 averages (10*.3425)*(17-4) = 44.525 damage

22 AV/6 AR averages (10*.42)*(11-6) = 46.2 damage
24 AV/4 AR averages (10*.27)*(11-4) = 35.1 damage

Looking over the Bestiary guidelines, Minion (d6 or d8), Common (d6 or d8) and Elite (d8 or d10) creatures get +3 skill/Tier so Tier 1.5 =+4/5, 2.0 = +6, 2.5 = +7/8 and 3.0 = +9
Add an extra 1 or 2 for talents (wolf pack/swarm tactics, weapon mastery, etc.) and you're looking at
Minion (d8) T1.0 = 2d10+1d8+4 (18.5), T1.5 = 2d10+1d8+6 (20.5), T2.0 = 2d10+1d8+7 = 21.5, T2.5 = 2d10+1d8+9 = 23.5
Common (d8) [As Minion]
Elite (d10) [And assuming +2 to hit vs. +1] = 2d10+1d10+5 = 20.5, T1.5 = 2d10+1d10+7=22.5, T2.0 = 2d10+1d10+8=23.5, T2.5 = 2d10+1d10+10=25.5

Rough Estimate on Average Defenses (pre-magic / buff)
PC Tier 1.5 = 12 +3 or 4 (Pr) +3 (In) + 0 or 2 + 0/1 Racial = 18 to 22
Tier 1.10 = 12 + 3 or 4 (Pr) +3 (In) +2 Defenses + 0/1 Racial = 20 to 22

This doesn't factor in shields, runes or encumbrance.

Between Defense bumps, stat increases, spells and magic, I think it's possible to generally keep pace with the foes.

I ran the numbers at lunch, so I may be missing something more significant. It certainly looks like AV is better 1/1 than AR, but it depends on what your trade off is, and there's certainly a point of diminishing returns.

With a sweep of his hat,

Paul

So, the part of this (above) that is not my experience for many encounters, is the +5 attack bonus and the +1 damage bonus. Frequently, the bonuses seem higher than that, more in the +8 or more attack range. Which equals hitting my AV, which was in the 22-24 range for most of T2.

I say that AV is not as important as most bad guys, especially the non-minions, don't seem to break a sweat to go over my AV of 24.

I think your numbers are accurate (from my initial scan) its just not my experience that most opponents have been struggling to surpass an AV of 22-24, so Ill work on solid tactics to diminish exposure to more attacks than necessary, and will work to get other defenses higher to mitigate the damage done. That's just my philosophy *grin*

Agreed. That's why I added the #s at the bottom as referenced from the Bestiary. Because of the bell curve for the attack rolls, the 20/21 AV represented the middle values of that curve. The frequency of being hit can be directly adjusted. So, if the standard is +8 which is roughly average for a Minion / Common Tier 2.5 suggested encounter , adjust the baseline AVs up by 3. The second set of numbers I threw in increased the damage #s looking at 17 vs. 11 which is closer to what you were referencing. Interestingly, the value of the AR goes down vs. AV as the average damage goes up as getting the bang out of the AR takes longer vs. avoiding a single hit.



Again, that's been my opinion as well but the numbers suggest that IF the choice is equivalent between an AV and AR increase, you are better off taking the AV bonus. The site AnyDice (http://www.anydice.com) allows you to specify any combination of dice and static bonus and calculates the statistics for hitting at each number. Feel free to take specific encounters and do a comparison vs. Decius' AV and AR. I may do the same for Vincens as I have taken AR over AV without fail and now I need to rethink it.



Agreed. Vincens is designed for combat, and I'm working on getting him to a better place defensively given he does two weapon fighting. While only getting hit 6 out of 10 times vs. 7 out of 10 times may not sound like much of a difference, especially as the damage goes up it is.

At a minimum it's at least something interesting to play with.

With a sweep of his hat,

Paul

The simple purchase of the Defence rune at the start of the last game (going from Av:23 to Av:24) has made a huge difference for me, with at least 4 misses in the one combat (saving around 20 damage per hit). Prior to that I was constantly getting 'just' hit or 'just hit more than my Fate score can negate'. This seems to have me at the sweet spot for my current Tier.




Part of this, in my reading, has been some stat blockers using the "Encounter Value" of the foe to calculate the skill bonuses and number of talents instead of the "Tier Value". There can be a significant difference between the two between templates and certain creature types and it is not always caught in editing.

A minion with a Tier Value of 1.0 and an Encounter Value of 3.0 (possible but not plausable) should still be running only +3 skill values (plus Brute/Martial templates etc), yet I have seen stat blocks running +6 and even +9 before the template and talents such as Wolf Pack Tactics, Weapon Focus and the Mob Tactics Trait are added.

Seconded.
It's also no credit to the mechanics that the leading edge of "effective" can slip away so quickly.
See also how hard people think a BI should be and whether being part of the grand battles of destiny should be automatically selective to combat specialists.

It's the same problem it's always been, and that's player focus. DPS masters tend to check out between fights unless they have an itch being scratched*. By comparison Social skills are important, but I haven't yet seen a mod terminally deviate into a ditch and end early because someone didn't have Empathy or Persuade.
That's the difference because the plot moves on and it's possible to RP through a scene you can't dice through.
The stakes aren't the same, they never are unless you're playing L5R or Nobilis or Exalted.
Failing a social roll might not get you the outcome you want, but fail to fight and you're just dead.

And let's not escalate to "Mutual Spell Retribution" with crap like Solidify Water.
First off, we're not birds so I'm gonna pass on that "goose/gander" metaphor. It's a human dignity issue, and good luck selling waterfowl sourcebooks.
Or if one prefers, "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."

Second, it's nothing to be proud of that there's a valid worry in how the "interpretive lethality" of an encounter depends on what a GM feels like.
For example, Ymandragorian Thralls are a solid idea with a terrible outcome and having seen 5 of 6 of a party paralyzed while the GM tries to think of why the Harverster doesn't get busy killing everyone I'm not impressed.
Hold Person has been a bad idea since 2nd Edition, passing out Save Or Die (except not, because no Saves) every 6 ticks is daring someone to keep playing after they got wasted by even a mediocre to-hit roll and a GM who didn't see why ruthless villains would just hold back.

Answering a bad idea with another bad idea rarely does anything but grind up people in the middle. Recall that last arc there was a (gratefully temporary) emphasis on wanting "true heroes" to be "truly heroic" in the sense of super-specialized and maximally power-gamed.
Kind of like Darwinian Gaming Theory "we should all be Hercules/Achilles/Alexander of Macedonia and by extension death to the rest" as expressed through ambitiously accommodating 3.X D&D.
I remember the super-abundance of Trallian Hammers and Spiked Chains. I don't miss them and I think the campaign was wise to move on.

Let's avoid solutions that're mostly useful for persuading players to do something else, eh?

Oh, and I was up to date on this thread when I posted. I chose that quote as a place to step into the conversation.


*Yes, I know about That Fallacy and while I agree that there isn't necessarily an exclusivity of interests that a player can talk his/her way through one kind of challenge and must dice through the other tends to lend itself to players having at least an inclination.

For comparison to the topic:

Denevir the Dark Kin Gladiator.
Exceptional Mace,
+5 to hit (with -1 for Forward Stance), d10 Prowess,
Basic attack:
1d8+1d10+1d4+3 avg = 15.5
Speed 4,
3.875 dpt.

Maneuvers:
-Sweeping Strike
-Crushing Blow
-Unbalancing Attack (+1/+4, hits Discipline, -3 to damage, +Prowess die on next attack)

Advanced Maneuvers:
-Vexing Sweep (Unbalancing Attack and Sweeping Strike, Spd/Rec +2/+5)

Taking a mace was mistake, but whatever. I'll adapt Mighty Swing later.
I lack the ambition to work out how Unbalancing Attack tweaks my DPT, though I typically apply it with a whip to shave the time down a little and for positioning as against Large targets it gets me the chance to set them up at their attack range so they're less likely to kite me out if I decided to close the distance beforehand.

Defensively I'm:
AR: 4
Avd: 21 (with -1 Bulk for Wings of the Fiend)
Frt: 21
Dsc: 20

Usually I feel like basically an easy to hit target, but AR: 4 (Gladiator's Armor, Bestial Hide) seems to be adequate.
IMO the Wings chain seems underpowered and overpriced, but eh -RP tax.
Otherwise the whip is totally normal and I have Massive Horns, which are abominably useless.

Don't underestimate the effectiveness of Crushing Blow and other non-damage options. Your own damage might not be huge, but "Sweeping Strike + Crushing Blow" can really reduce the enemies output. Raw damage output doesn't tell the whole story.

ie: Monster uses Mighty Swing; you hit with Crushing blow. Not only do they strike again later, their Recovery doesn't start until they do get to act. The monster does a normal strike to bleed off the Recovery and then you push them again, several ticks later than the recovery is normally cleared.

Instead of a ~25+~20 damage combo every 12 ticks, you push them out to 16 ticks; in effect reducing their damage by 25% (more or less depending upon AR of your allies).

If you tag-team with someone doing Stunning Strike the enemy are in even more trouble.

Even a simple Disarm Foe (once the errata catches up with the Slashing Disarm changes) makes things easier.

I don't follow the first statement. Could you clarify? My point as I stated before was to understand how the damage #s I was hearing are being calculated. I have not seen from those who write stat blocks a tendency to play to the margins. Transparency across the range of characters playing should help ensure the combats don't go to the huge damage #s. A well built combatant should help a mod like a well built diplomat character does. Sure you can succeed without them, but they certainly make life easier.

A BI should be dangerous for individuals of reasonable martial skill. By that I mean characters who've made an effort to do something in combat. Not twinked out, not combat monsters, but characters who if casters have a spell or two to use and a plan to use it or a near maxed out weapon skill and at least a bit of armor. If you're clearly better than that you're likely to draw the enemy's attention and still be challenged. If you walk in as a character with sub-par defenses, virtually no armor and at best questionable combat contributions, then yes, expect to be at greater risk. That does not mean the character doesn't have a valid reason for being there. You can argue it makes them more heroic rather than less-so for being that scribe willing to take a stand for a cause she believes in. It can be a great RP opportunity and character defining. The player simply needs to accept the risks they incur as part of that.

An average BI encounter is arguably going to be more difficult than your average mod encounter. Note the use of "average" in both descriptions. Again there will be variability. There's an optional rule at the back of the Codex of Heroes called Permanent Injury.

"When a Hero would die as a result of a failed Healing Action rolls, the Hero can "succeed" instead. The Hero obtains a physical Flaw instead of dying. Suitable examples include: Physical Weakness, Feeble Attribute or One Eye."

Something that has been brought up which I feel is valid, is if a player is unwilling to have their character die a meaningful death at a heroic moment as the balance of the campaign is in play, then when are they willing to die? I can't think of any GMs that are out to get the PCs. Most if not all of them would feel bad about killing a PC if it happened.

I'm just another player. If you think my position above is wrong, help me understand why. The PCI staff has done a great job of being responsive to players requests and concerns over the years.



I'm not sure how much Arcanis draws the hack and slash crowd compared to other systems. Some people are simply polite and yield the floor to other players to have their turn in the spotlight.



There are a number of mods though where it's possible to avoid combats through social rolls and good planning. Failure in those cases leads to combat. So while it's true that the lack of social skills didn't directly execute the character, the net result may still be the same.

I've trimmed the rest of the post because it's long and it's late. It's clear you've had some bad experiences at tables. That doesn't inherently mean that particular encounters are poorly designed. Spoiler threads and others allow for feedback and fixing encounters that don't run as intended. In terms of GMs you will always find varied levels of ability.

I hope you continue to find enough enjoyment in playing the system that you keep with it. Constructive criticism is generally accepted graciously from what I've seen.

With a sweep of his hat,

Paul

Sure, yeah.
My tactical skills aren't as polished as yours, but I've picked up that after an foe blasts most mightily is the time to Push it via Crush (-ing Strike or -ing Weight) it so far back the GM needs another d12 to track it's next action.
Really imo Crushing Strike's problems are that it's comparatively time consumptive even before it's mixed in with anything and that it targets Fortitude -the defense most likely to eclipse Avoidance on those things I most want to Push.
Denevir's not a total failure as mechanics go. She's pretty damn good at being a big pain the ass of the classic Tank type (CHALLENGE!) and Disarm's not bad if you've got, say a whip, so as to make your attempts outside their range.

That said there are plenty of things that don't use weapons, or that hit so hard that being unarmed isn't much of a down-grade for them.
But whatever. One fight at a time.