Is Crit Damage Dead?

[Borror0]

With DDO’s increasing bonuses to hit players have very few options to create a meaningful AC. So that “+20 to confirmation AC” becomes “You get crit on a confirmation roll of a 2.” The systems that Turbine would have to change to accommodate this would result in a complete rewrite of the combat system.

Are there words missing in the underlined sentence?

[Depravity]

That would be an intentional benefit. Have you seen what those guys do now, with pulling 11 mobs into a Wall of Fire and jumping back and forth over their heads? That should be a risky tactic, but Heavy Fort means it isn't.

If 8-dex robe wearers had to worry that an orc could take off 50% of his hp total with one lucky axe hit, gameplay would improve.

I do that. Actually, I find that it doesn't work as well as running with a couple of melees that know their stuff and are willing to help corral things in the firewall - in which case I'm stting safe behinfd a wall of flesh and steel. Alternately, I could go ghoste's route, and pop on a shield with 15 DR and block. i will admit that firewall hopping is probably something that should be discouraged, but it's just as easy to make things fire off trip more often, which really puts a damper on it. I don't firewall bounce dogs/wolves, and for a good reason.

***Edit*** If you're any good at it, firewall blouncing relies more on avoiding getting hit than anything else. Between haste, jump, and displacement, most things aren't even getting a swing because I'm avoiding "physics hits" - they never intersect my hit box. At that point, crits or lack thereof become meaningless.

Against one silly tactic we have the standard caster role of ticking off every archer in the instance. Pulling a little CC so the ranged attackers don't pick the melee types to pieces until they get to them results in your caster looking like a giant pincushion. Now it'll come with a decent number of crits (at x3, to boot), for doing something that I should be doing. Kiss your crowd control goodbye, because my magical butt isn't going on the line because the meat won't attack anything that isn't immediately in front of them.

There are other benefits to a system boosting AC vs critical confirmation (700 hp, no AC, "I need the AP for something else" DR barbs, anyone?), but I think the issues with lower AC players would outweigh the gains. Throwing some mild (maybe 25% tops) fort reduction into the game is more complex, but allows for better dev control over how things play out. An AC boost sytem, for instance, doesn't address the need for a hard (but not impossible) to crit but low AC monster (I can't think of a need for this, but the devs are a sinister and creative lot).

[Borror0]

I think the issues with lower AC players would outweigh the gains.

Which part do you see as problematic?

The part where ranged's "safeness" become non-insignificant, the part where tanking becomes a far more non-insignificant role in a party, the part where healing becomes more reactive and less spammy, the part where building DPS character is less simple because AC is not "worthless" anymore or the part where the game becomes more challenging?

[Angelus_dead]

Alternately, I could go ghoste's route, and pop on a shield with 15 DR and block.

Yes, some casters decide to shield block instead of moving around. And if Fortification's effectiveness was based on AC, then that +15 blocking DR wouldn't do much when the mob gets 160 on a crit.

You see, that's another failure in DDO's design: the formulas for blocking DR were created back when the level cap was 10, and players didn't have Heavy Fort (or even Moderate, really). An amount of DR that seems balanced when compared against the full range of possible incoming damage turns out to be excessive when critical hits are arbitrarily prohibited.

If you're any good at it, firewall blouncing relies more on avoiding getting hit than anything else. Between haste, jump, and displacement, most things aren't even getting a swing because I'm avoiding "physics hits" - they never intersect my hit box. At that point, crits or lack thereof become meaningless.

You're not as good as you think you are, at least not forever. If you want to rely on movement for defense, fine; but there should be a penalty for when you screw up the dancing. With a 250 hp caster and mobs who hit for 50, you can soak up seven actual attacks before you need to go get healed. But if they have a chance get a 3x crit, then there's an actual element of risk to what you're doing. A couple hits (or one crit) puts you into OHOK territory.

i will admit that firewall hopping is probably something that should be discouraged, but it's just as easy to make things fire off trip more often, which really puts a damper on it. I don't firewall bounce dogs/wolves, and for a good reason.

Huh. You think it would be too rough on the players to give monsters a chance to critically hit them, so instead you want mobs to prevent you from taking actions by their touch. Here's a nice rule of thumb: Effects which prevent a player from doing anything should be avoided as much as possible, even if they appear balanced in terms of who wins the encounter.

Have you noticed how the wolves are the most dangerous mobs before the boss of Enter The Kobold, despite being 4 or 5 CRs below the rest? There's a reason for that...

Against one silly tactic we have the standard caster role of ticking off every archer in the instance. Pulling a little CC so the ranged attackers don't pick the melee types to pieces until they get to them results in your caster looking like a giant pincushion. Now it'll come with a decent number of crits (at x3, to boot), for doing something that I should be doing.

Wait, what?

Why should the game design support a robe-wearing caster protecting teammates by deflecting enemy attacks with his body? That's called "tanking", and if you want to be a tank you should need to build yourself as a durable character.

[Depravity]

Which part do you see as problematic?

The part where ranged's "safeness" become non-insignificant, the part where tanking becomes a far more non-insignificant role in a party, the part where healing becomes more reactive and less spammy or the part where the game becomes more challenging?

Did I anywhere say that I didn't like the idea of making fortification less absolute? I'm pretty sure I did not. Allowing some way to reduce fortification is most likely good for the game. Telling somebody they can't get it unless they build some sort of "exploiter" splash build or stuff themselves into a tin can is not. Taking the characters likely to have the lowest hp and saying things are going to hit them harder, in addition to the current more often, is not.

Attaching fortification and hitting to a single stat has one major flaw:
Attack bonus becomes almost everything, dominating many other character design decisions because anything that doesn't increase to hit starts hurting your damage output. Currently it's possible to get "enough" to hit without focusing exclusively on it, allowing for room in character builds to get some diversity. When fighters are "gimped" because they didn't buy the full crit accuracy line and take the feat 6 times, it is a problem.

Think of the halfling dex ranger/splashes - they already get top tier to hits, on top of bonus damage, and would start getting more crits than anyone else. The fort as AC proposal would serve to pull them farther ahead of every other melee build in terms of DPS. I'm pretty sure that pushing cookie-cutter building is not a wonderful thing.

Attaching fort reduction to special attacks, spells, powers, what have you, gives the devs more control over where and when to apply it. One of the supposed changes with the grazing hit system is that mob to-hits can occupy a wider band, without making the mobs completely ineffectual. This change would reverse that, as they'd need the higher to-hits again to start breaking through fortification.

Basically, I see no real need to further entangle to-hit with critical hit avoidance, as I feel it would tend to limit variety and innovation. It takes something that limits design space (everyone has heavy fort), and replace it with something else that limits design space (this one stat does two things).

In either case, I am intrigued by the possibilities presented for team tactics - having a specialist in reducing AC and/or Fort would make for more tactical options, and make the game less liek a spreadsheet, and more like, well, a game. Also, giving some of the monsters a chance to break out their sneak d6s would be cool, as one of the classic ways to deal with over-confident PnP players is to drop them in a room with a bunch of rogues.

[Angelus_dead]

There are major problems with making fortification into bonus AC for a confirmation roll in DDO.

Like what? Simply noticing that some player characters will occasionally receive higher incoming weapon damage is not enough to declare that there's a problem. In fact, since the game is essentially too easy, increasing incoming damage would more likely be an improvement.

With DDO’s increasing bonuses to hit players have very few options to create a meaningful AC. So that “+20 to confirmation AC” becomes “You get crit on a confirmation roll of a 2.”

For one thing, the number 20 is just an example. The actual number could be whatever it takes to make it seem fair... and in addition there could be new magic items that go beyond Heavy Fortification to provide even a higher bonus. Obviously, equipping those items would be a tradeoff, because beyond Heavy Fort would cost more plusses, so the item wouldn't have much in terms of other bonuses on it. That kind of meaningful choice is good for gameplay.

But suppose that the bonus does turn out to be 20, and look at what you're saying. If a monster can confirm against +20 AC 95% of the time, then that means his attack rolls would still be 95% hits even with a -19 penalty from stacked Curse, Crushing Despair, Shaken, Enfeeblement, Exhaustion, Pain, and Weakness. If your AC is that low, why should the game rules allow you to be durable in combat? Wouldn't it make sense for someone with such a bad AC to be more vulnerable?

Look at a specific example: A CR 18 Tiefling has +40 attack, so characters with less than 43 AC will be 95% hit, while those with over 59 will be 95% missed. If your Heavy Fort adds +20 to confirmation AC, then he will be completely incapable of critting someone with 41 AC or more, and characters with 31 AC will negate 50% of crits.

To have 41 AC, all you need is 10 base + 6 robe + 4 Shield + 5 dex + 5 prot + 5 bark + 5 pal + 1 haste = 41. And many casters get AC well past that without trouble.

But for robed casters to be crit-immune isn't even the goal. The real objective is to make them care about AC again, which means getting them into the range where an AC buff isn't worthless, because helps reduce incoming crits. And for a CR 18 trash mob, that would start all the way down at AC 21.

[Angelus_dead]

Telling somebody they can't get it unless they build some sort of "exploiter" splash build or stuff themselves into a tin can is not.

I didn't see anyone suggest that, except for the people who want Destruction and Sunder to include like -25% Fortification... but you're not replying to that suggestion.

Taking the characters likely to have the lowest hp and saying things are going to hit them harder, in addition to the current more often, is not.

Can you support that declaration?

Attaching fortification and hitting to a single stat has one major flaw:
Attack bonus becomes almost everything, dominating many other character design decisions because anything that doesn't increase to hit starts hurting your damage output. Currently it's possible to get "enough" to hit without focusing exclusively on it, allowing for room in character builds to get some diversity. When fighters are "gimped" because they didn't buy the full crit accuracy line and take the feat 6 times, it is a problem.

That's obviously untrue. It appears to be theorizing without a basis in gameplay experience.

The reality is that attack bonus is not important enough now. It is far too easy to reach the point of hitting on 2s while barely caring about increasing your attack: You get strength and song for damage, and heroism for saves, and as side-effects they also boost your attack roll to more than enough. Everywhere players say things like: "I can't remember turning off Power Attack", "I don't need OTWF for this second scimitar", and even "I won't train Khopesh"

Think of the halfling dex ranger/splashes - they already get top tier to hits, on top of bonus damage, and would start getting more crits than anyone else. The fort as AC proposal would serve to pull them farther ahead of every other melee build in terms of DPS.

Ok, haha, good one. For a while I thought you were serious, but now you're giving it away.

[Depravity]

You're not as good as you think you are, at least not forever. If you want to rely on movement for defense, fine; but there should be a penalty for when you screw up the dancing. With a 250 hp caster and mobs who hit for 50, you can soak up seven actual attacks before you need to go get healed. But if they have a chance get a 3x crit, then there's an actual element of risk to what you're doing. A couple hits (or one crit) puts you into OHOK territory.

I know I'm not that good - again, I don't do it to things likely to knock me down.
I think you mean 4. In which case one crit + 2 attacks = 250 = dead = not fun. As opposed to them landing a sunder, putting an icon/ugly hat up on my screen and giving me a chance to react and really focus on getting away and abandoning my bait duties.

Huh. You think it would be too rough on the players to give monsters a chance to critically hit them, so instead you want mobs to prevent you from taking actions by their touch. Here's a nice rule of thumb: Effects which prevent a player from doing anything should be avoided as much as possible, even if they appear balanced in terms of who wins the encounter.

Have you noticed how the wolves are the most dangerous mobs before the boss of Enter The Kobold, despite being 4 or 5 CRs below the rest? There's a reason for that...

Recognizing a potentially deadly situation and avoiding it is different from all situations having the same (and likely excessive) lethality. This is a learned skill (don't annoy the puppies) vs a blanket prohibition (don't cast FW unless you have a safe perch or shield wall). Again, I admit firewall bouncing is a cheesy tactic, and I am more into CC as I find it more mana efficient in many cases (heightened webs are cheap and make the melee types happy). Reducing dependency on it is not a bad idea, I just think the method you chose to implement is not the right one.

Why should the game design support a robe-wearing caster protecting teammates by deflecting enemy attacks with his body? That's called "tanking", and if you want to be a tank you should need to build yourself as a durable character.

On my whopping 140 pt halfling wizzy (original 28 pt build, built wrong, adn I still run around on him) this is decidedly not tanking. It's a statement about how much hate CC spells generate - web, glitterdust, hold all really honk things off. Even firewalling a gorup of archers makes me a primary target. I expect to take a few hits, and with the generally low incoming damage on ranged stuff I can still be effective while spending time behind a pillar, crate or what have you - I have a reasonable expectation of being able to pop out, cast, take an arrow or two, and hide while sucking down pots/popping dragonmarks. If I'm going to start taking triple crits on a regular basis, I'm going to leave them to whatever they originally aggroed on by sight, rather than risk my hide to save the frontliners from getting used as targets. In a good group, it's less of an issue since somebody will often run around taking out outliers instead wading into the thick to pump up his kill count. Since I pug heavily when i'm not soloing or shortmanning (small guild), I can't be guaranteed there will be someone bright enough to do that.

[Angelus_dead]

I think you mean 4. In which case one crit + 2 attacks = 250 = dead = not fun.

I meant seven. You have Displacement and Stoneskin, right?

As opposed to them landing a sunder, putting an icon/ugly hat up on my screen and giving me a chance to react and really focus on getting away and abandoning my bait duties.

That would happen under my suggestion too: Being Sundered reduces your AC, making it easier for mobs to confirm crits on you, potentially allowing it where it would have been impossible before. Thus a Sunder icon should be treated as a warning.

But the advantage of my suggestion is that a caster with sufficiently high AC wouldn't face that threat; with the right build and gear he could be uncrittable even after a Sunder. That means there are more possibilities for choices and tradeoffs in character building.

On my whopping 140 pt halfling wizzy (original 28 pt build, built wrong, adn I still run around on him) this is decidedly not tanking. It's a statement about how much hate CC spells generate - web, glitterdust, hold all really honk things off.

Oh cmon, glitterdust...

I'll tell you one thing, though: It's a problem when game developers have to hold back on improving balance because it would impair characters who were built wrong. That's why DDO should have never been launched without respecs, and why the devs have finally decided to allow respecs in the next few patches.

The fact that an old build would suffer from a change is a not an argument against the correctness of the modification. It can be a reason to avoid making the change right now, but it's irrelevant as to if the altered rule would've been better in the first place.

Even firewalling a gorup of archers makes me a primary target. I expect to take a few hits, and with the generally low incoming damage on ranged stuff I can still be effective while spending time behind a pillar, crate or what have you - I have a reasonable expectation of being able to pop out, cast, take an arrow or two, and hide while sucking down pots/popping dragonmarks. If I'm going to start taking triple crits on a regular basis, I'm going to leave them to whatever they originally aggroed on by sight, rather than risk my hide to save the frontliners from getting used as targets.

Sounds good so far. A wizard with neither hitpoints nor AC deciding he shouldn't light multiple mobs on fire at once without taking a calculated risk... that sounds exactly like what would be expected to happen.

[transtemporal]

How to nerf fortification: Turn it from an absolute percentage chance into an opposed roll. (Dev quote: "Granting immunity is bad for the game") For example, instead of Arraetrikos having a 50% chance to negate crits, he could have a +10 AC bonus against crit confirmation. This means that having a higher attack bonus is important for that raid, even if you already could hit the boss on a roll of 2. That'll help solve one problem the devs have faced, where it's hard to keep players satisfied that their attacks can work, while still building mobs whose AC matters.

Conversely, if you were going to melee a raid boss, you'd want to wear Heavy Fort for something like +20 AC against confirmation, and then try to get an AC high enough so that even if Arraetrikos hits you 95% of the time, he can't always confirm a crit. So if fortification was an opposed roll, player characters would need to care more about both their attack bonus and AC. They'd be less able to say "Meh, it hits on a 2 or higher, there's nothing to be done"

Naturally, Sneak Attacks would have to be confirmed against the same elevated AC, except that they would check the same number as the initial attack roll. And also certain boss fights would need to be rebalanced now that player characters are no longer 100% crit immune.

/signed.

I like this for a few reasons:
a) its elegant - it extends an existing mechanic logically and turns an absolute stat into a relative one
b) it still remains intuitive and consistent to specialise in a high crit weapon at all levels, rather than swapping to something like DA/BS at high levels to compensate for mobs with high fort (counterintuitive),
c) it requires melees to pay attention to attack bonus, whereas at the moment, even a 3/4 bab class doesn't need to pay a lot of attention to it;
d) it encourages everyone to pay a little attention to AC as any AC will help you against crits;
d) it enables the devs to design mobs with high fort without basically obsoleting an entire class; i.e. rogues.

It also has the side benefit of making feats like power critical actually useful.

Nice idea A_D.

Also cforce, thanks for starting an actually interesting thread that wasn't moaning about mod9.

[QuantumFX]

Are there words missing in the underlined sentence?

I’m referring to the scaling attack bonuses that DDO gives us. (Level 20 fighter in P&P: +20/+15/+10/+5; In DDO it’s +20/+21/+25/+30/+30) A_D’s proposal would work better in a P&P setting as the fortification system has a chance to offset a crit on the first attack and gains more usefulness over an attack chain. In DDO this system wouldn't work as mob to hit bonuses are scaled to challenge monk splash builds.

[Borror0]

I’m referring to the scaling attack bonuses that DDO gives us. (Level 20 fighter in P&P: +20/+15/+10/+5; In DDO it’s +20/+21/+25/+30/+30) A_D’s proposal would work better in a P&P setting as the fortification system has a chance to offset a crit on the first attack and gains more usefulness over an attack chain. In DDO this system wouldn't work as mob to hit bonuses are scaled to challenge monk splash builds.

I understood what you are referring to, but it does not make sense.

Players' ability to gain meaningful AC is totally unrelated to that, since NPCs have static attack bonuses. Either you were referring to the challenge it represented for the developers to create meaningful monster AC or you were misinformed about the attack bonus of NPCs which is static.

[SquelchHU]

You are correct that it feels unrealistic for monsters with high Intelligence scores to pass up on what should be an obvious defensive upgrade. (Although the correct term is "verisimilitude").

But that's what happens when a game system has bad rules: the designers have to make some of their characters do senseless things in order to keep things working. If Fortification had a more balanced design, then it would be OK for every high-level mob to use it.

In a similar way, you could ask yourself: Why doesn't every single mob caster use Greater Dispel Magic? Given how important buffs are to players, it would help the mobs survive if they dispelled everything. The answer is that dispel is poorly designed in DDO, so increasing the use of dispelling would make the game worse. (I have previously suggested changes to improve dispelling, but they're a real low priority)

You both call it 'bad', and yet Rogues can bypass immunity, just not in DDO. Normal crits cannot.

The things that block dispels aren't in either. But dispels are one of the few things that reliably stop high levels dead.

Luck is the opposite of balance. Fort decreases luck. Therefore, fort improves balance (liking it is another matter).

Having your game require judicious use of the Idiot Ball to not break is what is poor design.

[Borror0]

You both call it 'bad', and yet Rogues can bypass immunity, just not in DDO. Normal crits cannot.

While this is presented as a refutation, it does not actually refute the reasons as to why Heavy Fortification is called bad design.

Luck is the opposite of balance.

I would love to see the demonstration of that theory.

[QuantumFX]

I understood what you are referring to, but it does not make sense.

Players' ability to gain meaningful AC is totally unrelated to that, since NPCs have static attack bonuses. Either you were referring to the challenge it represented for the developers to create meaningful monster AC or you were misinformed about the attack bonus of NPCs which is static.

Or I was pointing out that many of those attack bonuses are geared towards high AC characters and that there are too many melee builds that stand to lose a lot of survivability if a rule like this was implemented. A lot of the new high level content chews through a 70+ AC. This means fortification AC would need to be at least a 90+ to be of any use. You and A_D seem to be under the illusion that it's an easy AC for for all characters to achieve.

[SquelchHU]

While this is presented as a refutation, it does not actually refute the reasons as to why Heavy Fortification is called bad design.

I would love to see the demonstration of that theory.

The reasons presented were 1: Stops Rogues. 2: It's not fun.

Pointing out that they could add the immunity bypass stuff that already exists in D&D and that the presence or absence of fun is a preference and not an argument is a refutation.

What did I miss?

The 'theory' is simple. Balance requires prediction. The better you can foresee what will happen, the better you can influence variables to produce the desired outcome. This is true for players and designers both. Conversely, luck is innately random. Say a mob kills you. Was it bad luck or a tactical failure? The less of a factor luck is the more easily you can isolate and correct the problem. The more of a factor luck is the less skill matters and the less you can improve your skill?

Consider the same from the devs perspective except now the question is 'Are its stats too high?'

At the extreme end you get Super Smash Brothers Melee 'professional' play and its accompanying meme. That's no good. But Heavy Fort doesn't go that far.

[Borror0]

I was pointing out that many of those attack bonuses are geared towards high AC characters and that there are too many melee builds that stand to lose a lot of survivability if a rule like this was implemented.

As Angelus_dead pointed out, that's not a problem. As a matter of fact, that is the intended goal.

Unless you want to base yourself on the weak premise that DDO developer would "never get the balance right" and changing the Fortification rules would necessarily lead to unenjoyable gameplay because they can't adjust their item design or monster design in consequence, you're merely stating one of the desired effects. If you are basing yourself on that premise, you've got me unconvinced. I don't think it's reasonable to assume the designers can't adjust numbers intelligently.

A lot of the new high level content chews through a 70+ AC. This means fortification AC would need to be at least a 90+ to be of any use.

That's false. Fortification AC would have to be at 70+ to be of any use if we stick with a +20 number.

But, that is assuming all monsters have to-hit of 70+ and that the to-hit are correctly balanced, and do not need to be readjusted.

You and A_D seem to be under the illusion that it's an easy AC for for all characters to achieve.

No, we are not.

[Borror0]

Balance requires prediction.

Unjustified premise, and it's completely false.

Rock, Paper, Scissor is the example of a perfectly balanced and it completely relies on total randomness. All moves are equal.

Was it bad luck or a tactical failure? The less of a factor luck is the more easily you can isolate and correct the problem. The more of a factor luck is the less skill matters and the less you can improve your skill?

I'll single out that part, and suppose that it's not part of an incorrect argument.

Randomness is important to gameplay. If a fight is too predictable, then it becomes incredibly dull as the moves are too easily.

If, for example, your were to play Tic-Tac-Toe against someone who reacts exactly the same way to your move and thus you know the outcome each time (in this example, you win all the time), it will probably not be a very enjoyable experience after a while. It will become repetitive and quickly unfun. Now, were you to play against a player who reacts differently to your moves each time or if you were to force that opponent to react differently each time, the experience risks to be more enjoyable.

Of course, being too random is not fun either. That is, by the way, why Rock, Paper, Scissor, is an horrible game even though it's perfectly balanced: all decisions are equal and therefore the only factor is luck. There are no skills involved, more decision making process to evaluate the risks. It's totally, utterly random and therefore boring. (Though, it's still more fun than complete predictability.)

In Internet slang, it's called being "too RNG" and it's viewed as bad because the player feels like he lacks control over his character or, if you prefer, because he feels like his actions are not meaningful and that, no matter what he does, the outcome of the combat is not decided by him but by luck.

World of Warcraft lead system designer Greg Street tackled that topic when he discussed the block mechanic:

Think about it this way.

Avoidance is good because it removes a lot of damage. Avoidance is bad because it is unpredictable. If you stack too much avoidance, you are likely to give your healers coronaries.

Mitigation (armor and straight damage reduction) is good because it's consistent. As you all point out, you can start to learn how much a blow will actually do to you. Mitigation is bad, from a player's perspective, because it can't save you. If you have 10 health and dodge, you might live. If you have 10 health and hope your armor will save you... well, it won't. You become the dreaded mana sponge because you are never avoiding damage completely.

Mitigation also has a risk from a design-perspective that when fights get too predictable they become too easy and unexciting. Imagine a tank with 75% damage reduction and no avoidance. You could calculate from the moment of the first attack whether you will survive the encounter. Heck, you might be able to not even heal the tank and know you'll survive depending on the specific abilities used by the boss.

Like WoW's combat, it is possible the DDO's combat becomes too random and, if that's the case, it's true that Fortification would improve gameplay (but not balance) by reducing the amount of randomness to an enjoyable level. However, I disagree with that position.

I think it can welcome more randomness, without any problem. It will only benefit gameplay.

[transtemporal]

Or I was pointing out that many of those attack bonuses are geared towards high AC characters and that there are too many melee builds that stand to lose a lot of survivability if a rule like this was implemented. A lot of the new high level content chews through a 70+ AC. This means fortification AC would need to be at least a 90+ to be of any use. You and A_D seem to be under the illusion that it's an easy AC for for all characters to achieve.

I don't agree that mobs attack is balanced against monk-league AC. In my experience, its lower. Low 60's is serviceable, 70 is pretty awesome and mid 70's is nigh on untouchable. Add 10 to that for red-names. 60's is achievable for a traditional non-monk-splash S&B tank.

On the other hand, I can see that under A_Ds system, toons with lower than 40 normal ac and 60 fortfifcation ac (assuming the +20 number) might as well not wear armor or fort item because it wouldn't help them against either normal attacks OR crits.

[SquelchHU]

Irony: You claim I'm not backing my points, yet most of yours are an unbacked 'You're wrong'. Further, statements like 'I'll single out that part, and suppose that it's not part of an incorrect argument.' imply you are starting under the assumption views you disagree with are wrong.

With that said we aren't disagreeing too much.

Me: Taking balance too far results in a small number of options out of what could have been a much larger pool. This is bad, but Heavy Fort doesn't go nearly that far so it's ok.

You: Extreme balance is bad, extreme imbalance is bad, aim in between.

These are the same outlooks.

The difference is you're in favor of the kind of luck that makes you randomly die due to crits. I want luck and 'screw you' moments mixing in game as much as I want ammonia and bleach mixing in my home.

I'm not alone in this as even a cursory look around reveals many examples of people wanting luck as far away as possible so that skill = success. Hit enemies on a 2, intimidate raid bosses on a 1...

I do not see many examples of the contrary.

High level D&D/DDO is not low level with +30 to everything. It is a different game. Stop suggesting the game should not evolve.