Under Eladrin's idea (which I also like, and which has the pleasant characteristic of being
much easier to implement than the broad anti-seeker/AC design changes), you have nothing to mitigate criticals when you get hit. If Harry throws a -40% Fort on you, you will just have to take it.
In that respect, someone who thinks the AC-based Fort design will make combat too risky should have the same qualms with the % method as well.
The only real difference is that with an anti-seeker bonus fixed to ACs (instead of a flat % fort cut), you can actually design your character to take less damage, despite that -40% cut or whatever. D&D classes are already designed to handle damage mitigation in various ways, even though we tend to overlook those features. Rogues, monks, rangers, and fighters have a solid AC potential, for instance, without losing too much punch.
In my experience with PnP, Fighters and Paladins in plate were the ones running around in Heavy Fort. Barbs and rogues rely on uncanny dodge to avoid sneak attack damage. Barbs rely on DR and huge hit point pools to survive the rest.
We need to think of these changes, both in Epic and non-Epic terms. An 80 AC is good stuff pre-Epic, and +20 or +30 anti-seeker up to level 19 is probably going to offer virtual immunity. In fact, given the effectiveness of AC at lower levels, anti-seeker may be more effective than the current % Fort for most classes.
No doubt the Epic side of the issue is more tough to balance. Epic mobs make mincemeat of things like Barb DR. But scaling down damage to accomodate critical spikes will benefit barbs; stackable DR for barbs would help even more.
However, the nice thing about the % system is that it's easier for
us when attacking other critters. Because we can be guaranteed a certain chance of getting a crit or a sneak attack. So I'm happy either way.
Heh, too much forums. Time for a break
