Suggested fortification change

[RobbinB]

There's been recent talk about changing fortification on items to provide a bonus to ac against critical confirmation rolls. Personally, I don't like the current fortification system (heavy fort is pretty much a must-wear or else you gimp your character, but then you can't be critically hit which is just, well, boring). However, I don't see the implimentation of fortification as a bonus against confirm rolls as a great system, since typically low ac classes like casters and bards (which also have low hp) would likely still be critically hit even if wearing heavy fortification, while the high ac classes such as monks would remain nearly immune to crits.

I would propose the following as a more reasonable alternative. Make the critical confirmation a dc roll with the attacker's basic roll a d20 + seeker bonuses against the defenders basic 10 + 2/4/6 for light/moderate/heavy fortification on items.

Such a system would also open up a myriad of possibilities with respect to classes, races, enhancements, items, and spells. For example the base d10 could be for fleshies while WF are given a base 12. (The additional fortication feat for WF could be changed to grant them a base of 14 at the cost of negative healing - I would propose -30% normally and -50% for those with the extra feat.)

Loot: instead of the current system where light and mod fort are useless at high levels, rare loot items could give a small stackable bonus to fortification (i'm thinking of the reaver ring, for example, +1 fort bonus instead of light fort).

Class/enhancements: rogues could have the ability to lower fortification of not just constructs but all classes. Sunder could be made (more) useful by affecting both ac and fortification (eg. sunder -2 ac -1 fort, improved sunder -4 ac, -2 fort) or some such.

Spells: how about improved mage armor +8 to ac, +2 to fort?

In light of recent talks about making S&B and armor wearing more effective, this could also be factored in to the system. How about +1/2/3 to fortification for wearing light/medium/heavy armors and +1/2 (all stackable) for heavy/tower shields?

More radically, all mobs including constructs and undead could be made crittable, just increase there base fortification to reflect their unique anotomy. Seems strange you can vorpal a vampire but not crit it. Either its neck is a weak spot or it isn't. Maybe vampires should just have a high base fort value, say 20. For other undead or constructs the base value could be even higher, making a crit possible with luck and some some appropriate feats/enhancements/loot.

A dc system would provide a refreshing tactical change to critical hit confirmation from both an offensive and defensive perspective and open up new avenues in terms of loot and character builds.

[Angelus_dead]

However, I don't see the implimentation of fortification as a bonus against confirm rolls as a great system, since typically low ac classes like casters and bards (which also have low hp) would likely still be critically hit even if wearing heavy fortification, while the high ac classes such as monks would remain nearly immune to crits.

What's bad about that?

I don't remember "Survive huge physical attacks" as part of the job description for wizards and bards, but I'm pretty sure it was an intended advantage of monks.

I would propose the following as a more reasonable alternative. Make the critical confirmation a dc roll with the attacker's basic roll a d20 + seeker bonuses against the defenders basic 10 + 2/4/6 for light/moderate/heavy fortification on items.

That's bad because
1. The only thing the attacker can bring to the table are seeker items and (maybe) Fighter Critical Accuracy, not other aspects of his character.
2. There's no avenue for a character to specialize in defense and get immune to crits from a certain level of monster. Even if they need 20s to hit you, they'll still crit on 30% of their hits. (Later on you suggest bonuses from shields and heavy armor that could bring it to a 20 DC. That's still bad, because a low-AC guy in heavy armor gets pretty crit-immune)
3. Because the confirm DC is not at all based on character AC, it does nothing to help the issue that player characters whose AC is below the monsters' AB have no motivation to invest in marginal AC boosts.

It is good that characters can get strong crit protection, but it's currently too easy to just put on Heavy Fort and be 100% immune forever, regardless of the monster.

Note also that giving monsters special abilities like a "Destroyer Strike" that debuffs -50% fortification is not the right way to fix things. Combating fortification shouldn't depend on specific build choices that only work against fortification- you should be able to partially defeat fortification just by being a super-strong warrior, without having devoted resources into exactly that.

Class/enhancements: rogues could have the ability to lower fortification of not just constructs but all classes. Sunder could be made (more) useful by affecting both ac and fortification (eg. sunder -2 ac -1 fort, improved sunder -4 ac, -2 fort) or some such.

Note that if fortification were a bonus against confirming crits, then Sunder would already help you crit more.
However, I support Sunder giving an equal penalty to crit defense as it does to AC, making it doubly good for allowing more crits.

In addition, my original Nerf Fortification suggestion (which can no longer be viewed on this forum) had Rogue Sneak Accuracy counting double for the purpose of confirming a Sneak Attack.

Spells: how about improved mage armor +8 to ac, +2 to fort?

Superior versions of the Mage Armor spell are too big a box of worms, considering the ongoing imbalance between robe and armor wearing AC builds.

In light of recent talks about making S&B and armor wearing more effective, this could also be factored in to the system. How about +1/2/3 to fortification for wearing light/medium/heavy armors and +1/2 (all stackable) for heavy/tower shields?

Something like that could be fine. It's a little questionable in that mith fp gives less crit protection than steel fp, because it's only medium.

A dc system would provide a refreshing tactical change to critical hit confirmation from both an offensive and defensive perspective and open up new avenues in terms of loot and character builds.

Notice that critical confirm rolls against AC are already a DC system, except the DC = AC+confirm_resistance and the bonus is BAB+seeker+strength+all the usual attack bonuses.

[sirgog]

If the game had started with your suggestions, OP, I'd say it may well be a better game.

The problem is that all the higher-level encounters have been balanced around the assumption that all players have heavy fort. As such, most monsters deal substantial damage on non-crits.


Case in point: Arraetrikos deals (IIRC) about 55 damage on normal with melee hits after being fully debuffed. In D&D pen and paper rules, most melee crits from mid to high level foes deal only about 55 damage. Even the Tarrasque and Colossal dragons can't do that much damage.

If Arraetrikos dealt 35 damage and 105 on a crit, unavoidable crits would be OK. But now that the system is as is, I'm for leaving it - and chalking up Heavy Fort on items other than armor/shields as a big design mistake that we are now stuck with.

[Angelus_dead]

For the record, here is the suggestion I had to Nerf Fortification.

1. Change items of Light, Moderate, and Heavy Fortification from 25%, 75%, 100% immunity to crits and sneak attacks into something like +5, +10, +20 bonuses against confirming crits and sneak attacks. Those numbers are not necessarily exact, and determining actual numbers should be based on reading a lot of obfuscated monster stats.

1b. In the future, add new magic items that give Fortification even higher than what Heavy Fort provides, in exchange for a higher cost in enhancement "plusses".

2. Require Sneak Attacks to be confirmed as follows: When a potential sneak attack is made, remember the attack roll. Check that same attack roll + the attacker's confirm bonuses against enemy AC + fortification. If the attacker still hits the modified AC, the sneak attack damage is applied. If not, it's a regular hit. (Note that in the typical case when the enemy has 0 fortification, this confirm check would always succeed)

2b. Rogues get a bonus of +1 per 4 rogue levels to confirm sneak attacks, and the Sneak Attack Accuracy enhancement counts double to confirm sneak attacks.

3. Give Warforged bonus fort equal to that provided by light fort, in addition to retaining a 25% racial immunity chance. Also give warforged racial enhancements to buy +1,+2,+3 fortification.

4. Moderately reduce the melee damage of a handful of powerful monsters who were designed under the assumption that they'd never score a critical hit. This includes Velah (on elite), Laliat, Arraetrikos, and Suulomades.

5. Probably reduce the Sneak Attack damage of a variety of high-level monsters that few players have even noticed are rogues.


The primary effects of this change are as follows:
1. Quest designers can give monsters a lot of resitance to crits and sneaks, but not in the boring way of being 50% or 100% immune. Instead, their degree of resistance depends on the abilities of the player characters.

2. Player characters who can already hit the monsters on a 2+ roll may still have motiviation to increase their attack rolls, if those creatures have fortification.

3. Player character builds who are supposedly "squishy" become more vulnerable to sudden death if they attract a lot of melee aggro. No longer can a guy with 20 AC and 200 hp shield-block in front of a devil who does 45 per swing, and trust to his shield to absorb 20 points off each attack. Instead of safely waiting to be at 50 hp left before a cleric must heal him, there's now a chance the monster gets a crit for 135. This increased vulnerability means a bigger need for teamwork, and less of sorcerers pulling a ton of aggro and burning it all with AOEs.

4. Player characters who cannot get their AC high enough for monsters to miss on attack rolls still have a motivation to increase their AC, because Heavy Fort will only make them crit-immune if the monster can't hit them after a -20 penalty. This increases the range of ACs that are meaningful and interesting.

5. Barbs are somewhat reduced in value compared to fighters and paladins, because their tendency towards squishiness becomes more of a concrete problem. Barbs become motivated to wear Mithral Fullplate or Adamantine Body, instead of being practically naked. This has the graphical advantage of them no longer looking like sorcs with axes.

[RobbinB]

Thanks for giving a refresh on your previous nerf suggestion A_D, I hadn't actually seen it. Certainly, I don't mind the fort as adding to AC approach, it's certainly better than the present system. But I still like my suggestion better, as it provides a greater variation in possibilities for ac and fortification

What's bad about that?

I don't remember "Survive huge physical attacks" as part of the job description for wizards and bards, but I'm pretty sure it was an intended advantage of monks.

Monks survive nasty attacks by not getting hit or maybe by having more hit points (sometimes) than squishier types. Casters who are dumb and draw aggro tend to die fast as it is, having a fort system in which ac is the predominant factor would seriously penalize them (I say too much, you seem to be saying so be it, all the better)


That's bad because
1. The only thing the attacker can bring to the table are seeker items and (maybe) Fighter Critical Accuracy, not other aspects of his character.

Don't see that as a problem except maybe in PvP, in PvE at lower levels most mobs would have fort 10 so you have at least 50% chance to confirm. Tank types at higher levels would presumably have some sort of seeker bonus. Also, I'm open to feat or enhancement suggestions that more than just fighters or rogues could possibly access.

2. There's no avenue for a character to specialize in defense and get immune to crits from a certain level of monster. Even if they need 20s to hit you, they'll still crit on 30% of their hits. (Later on you suggest bonuses from shields and heavy armor that could bring it to a 20 DC. That's still bad, because a low-AC guy in heavy armor gets pretty crit-immune)

That's part of my point - I don't believe you should ever be completely immune to critical hits. But your point is certainly valid for the monk case. I mean if I'm walking around with a 70ac and a greater fort item maybe its not quite fair that a monster rolls a 20 and then can crit me on a 17 or better. Then again, I did say there could be additional +1 or 2 to be gained from certain items or maybe there's a +1 somewhere in a feat or enhancement. Would take some thought, but I think you could balance it.

As for the tank that is pretty crit immune, great, he takes a lot of damage because he can't avoid it (low ac), but then he sort of absorbs a lot because lack of crit. Similar effect to increasing dr suggestions i would think.


3. Because the confirm DC is not at all based on character AC, it does nothing to help the issue that player characters whose AC is below the monsters' AB have no motivation to invest in marginal AC boosts.

100% agree. But we can't fix everything at once. Other suggestions have been made for making AC more relevant in general, I'll leave that as a separate problem.

It is good that characters can get strong crit protection, but it's currently too easy to just put on Heavy Fort and be 100% immune forever, regardless of the monster.
Agreed
Note also that giving monsters special abilities like a "Destroyer Strike" that debuffs -50% fortification is not the right way to fix things.
Agreed, at least with the 50% fortification anyway

Combating fortification shouldn't depend on specific build choices that only work against fortification- you should be able to partially defeat fortification just by being a super-strong warrior, without having devoted resources into exactly that.
Being strong already rewards you in terms of attack bonus and damage. Under my system, you could give small bonuses to confirm crits for exceptional strength if that was necessary (not sure it is). I'm also thinking that an additional bonus to confirm crits for 2HF would not be a bad thing.

Note that if fortification were a bonus against confirming crits, then Sunder would already help you crit more.
However, I support Sunder giving an equal penalty to crit defense as it does to AC, making it doubly good for allowing more crits.
Anything that might make Sunder a useful skill would be an improvement.

Superior versions of the Mage Armor spell are too big a box of worms, considering the ongoing imbalance between robe and armor wearing AC builds.
You might be right. It might have to be a self-only spell. Was thinking that in a couple more mods +8 bracers will be common, so there won't be an improvement for many monks, and would take high umd to cast from scroll (which might not be available in shops). Would help those casters get a little bit more reasonable AC, which of course would be more relevant if your nerf suggestion was used instead or if other changes to attack rolls were made.


Something like that could be fine. It's a little questionable in that mith fp gives less crit protection than steel fp, because it's only medium.
OK, maybe categorize the armors, like leather, padded give the +1, full and half-plate the +3, others +2? Either I think would work.


Notice that critical confirm rolls against AC are already a DC system, except the DC = AC+confirm_resistance and the bonus is BAB+seeker+strength+all the usual attack bonuses.
Again, I'd be somewhat happy with pretty much any change as long as some thought was made to get a reasonable balance, keeping in mind no system is going to be perfect.