Remove/Replace Fortification.

[Newtons_Apple]

We've been debating something similar to this, actually. Sunder, Improved Sunder, Destruction, Eagle Claw Strike, and the like would be fortification modifying effects instead of (or in addition to some of) their current effects, and we'd add other abilities that add to or lower fortification percentage as well. (We'd also likely add more possible treasure effects than the current 25/75/100%)

A secondary thing we're considering to go along with that is changing undead, constructs, and other similar creatures to having a base 200% fortification, and if you bust it down below 100%, rendering them vulnerable to critical hits and sneak attacks.

All still under debate at the moment.

Personally I don't like the 200% idea. One, it further moves us away from the base rules, which I admit I'm almost foolishly clinging to.

And two, how would it even matter? Other than on high hp bosses, by the time a player gets that mob down to a point where crits will land, the mob will most likely almost be dead anyway.

[Angelus_dead]

We've been debating something similar to this, actually. Sunder, Improved Sunder, Destruction, Eagle Claw Strike, and the like would be fortification modifying effects instead of (or in addition to some of) their current effects

If Fortification were replaced with an AC bonus against confirmation, then all of those things would happen automatically as side effects. Abilities which increase or decrease AC would then be important to characters who are 95% hit or 95% miss, because they modify the chance to have a critical hit.

That would be a more parsimonious approach than going through all those different effects and giving them a secondary ability to adjust Fortification. Barbarians and Paladins standing together, mass hysteria...

[Angelus_dead]

Anyway, I think the most sensible thing is to have fort gear give a static bonus to AC for purposes of confirming a crit.

I'll paste in my old suggestion for that change:

1. Except for creatures who naturally lack vital spots (like undead and constructs), Fortification is changed from percentages to an AC bonus on confirmation AC. (This means WF retain a racial 25%, which is separate from all changes)
2. Sample values for the AC bonus might be +5 Light, +15 Moderate, and +20 Heavy Fort, although the exact numbers are not firmly specified.
3. Sneak Attacks also require a check against confirmation AC to apply their extra damage, although instead of rolling another d20, the same result as the attack roll is used.
4. Because Heavy Fortification is an effect on items usable at level 9, new higher-level magic items are added which grant an even bigger bonus.
5. Powerful monsters, especially raid bosses, have their combat stats reevaluated to allow for the fact that they can now score critical hits.

Note:
1. This does not attempt to address complaints that Rogues can't fight undead.
2. This would mean that effects which increase crit confirmation become more valuable, as does anything that improves your attack bonus or damages enemy AC. Conversely, AC would become important to a larger proportion of player characters than it is now.

2 crits in a row would be almost a kill. This makes too much randomness in the game and would force clerics to keep tanks at FULL at all times in case they are crit.

That would only be true is if the devs make the mistake of failing to adjust monster damage after nerfing Fortification. You see, the reason mobs need to hit for such high values is to make them dangerous to characters who are immune to crits. Once Heavy Fortification is gone, monsters won't have to do such consistently high damage to make them threatening to player characters, so playing a healer can be more like responding to emergencies and less being a metronome.

[tomatt72]

!!

[dragonruler]

A secondary thing we're considering to go along with that is changing undead, constructs, and other similar creatures to having a base 200% fortification, and if you bust it down below 100%, rendering them vulnerable to critical hits and sneak attacks.

I don't know about anyone else but this is an "OMG YES PLZ!!!" type change for me It would definitely make it to where I don't mind running the undead quests on my rogue and ranger

[Lithic]

NM, AD beat me to it. I shouldn't leave a browser open for an hour before answering the post I open heh.

[gavagai]

We've been debating something similar to this, actually. Sunder, Improved Sunder, Destruction, Eagle Claw Strike, and the like would be fortification modifying effects instead of (or in addition to some of) their current effects, and we'd add other abilities that add to or lower fortification percentage as well. (We'd also likely add more possible treasure effects than the current 25/75/100%)

A secondary thing we're considering to go along with that is changing undead, constructs, and other similar creatures to having a base 200% fortification, and if you bust it down below 100%, rendering them vulnerable to critical hits and sneak attacks.

All still under debate at the moment.

I think enabling precision damage (criticals, sneak attacks) on otherwise fortified and crit-immune enemies has some real potential, at least as a way to recharge some of the underutilized PrEs:

Mechanic --> higher construct or general enemy fort reduction
Paladin HotD --> undead/general enemy fort reduction
Virtuoso song --> fort reduction

This would deeply underscore the party-friendly nature of the PrEs.

And just to plug something that's on everyone's minds the past couple days:

Rogue alternative capstone --> Fort reduction/circumvention?

[Aesop]

We've been debating something similar to this, actually. Sunder, Improved Sunder, Destruction, Eagle Claw Strike, and the like would be fortification modifying effects instead of (or in addition to some of) their current effects, and we'd add other abilities that add to or lower fortification percentage as well. (We'd also likely add more possible treasure effects than the current 25/75/100%)

A secondary thing we're considering to go along with that is changing undead, constructs, and other similar creatures to having a base 200% fortification, and if you bust it down below 100%, rendering them vulnerable to critical hits and sneak attacks.

All still under debate at the moment.

I'd be down with that

Aesop

[Arkat]

Hmmm...let me get this straight. The OP says 100% Fortification is bad because it is essentially "required" for all toons. Nevermind the fact it is fairly easy to get.

I might agree it's too easy to get and should prolly be restricted further. Having full fortification by 9th level does indeed seem too early to have it but the way some of those mobs in Gianthold hit, it really does seem necessary to many people.

Maybe it would just be wiser to increase the minimum level necessary for all levels of fortification to more accurately reflect when their toons (if they were v3.5 PnP characters) could "afford" it.

Perhaps 25% fortification should only be availble to toons 9th level and higher. 75% fortification to 11th level and higher and 100% fortification to 13th level toons and higher. You'd still get your 100% fortification while running Gianthold but maybe you'd be forced to hold off running that stuff until 11th level or so instead of 9th or 10th level when most people start it these days.

It would also mean some of the low to mid-level stuff would more likely be run because toons would have to wait longer before running Gianthold stuff.

Of course, you'd have to change the level requirement for items such as Minos Legens (and maybe the other helms you can get with tapestry pieces) but that shouldn't be a HUGE deal because 13th level is about when you should start running the Orchard stuff anyway.

Don't change Fortification too radically. Just tweak the level requirements for it.

[vhortex]

removing fortification factors is a crazy idea. in this game, getting an anti critical item (fortification) is much easier.
on one of the game i used to play before DDO, we need to do a massive 3 race battle every 6 hours to gain sole access to the mine. winning the war gets another way of defense time where you need to protect your mine control.

it is possible to win the war and be wiped on the defense mode removing the rights to mine. the mine gives ores and the ores needs to be process to get upgrade materials which cost racial cash and the result item is very random. you can then get a chance to upgrade your armor to increase fortification or anti crit with a high chance of 33%% on +1, 28% on +2 and 20% on +3.. the needed upgrade is around +5-+6 max is +7

*********
the other game i also played needs upgrade materials that you farm and grind to collect.. and get a nice chance to upgrade with a wooping 25% for below tier 2 upgrade. to top of it all, on failure there was 50% chance that your item will be destroyed and be gone.

there are a few more games that i played that have that rule.. personally, fortification is easier to achieve here and without fortification factors, everything will be soft as tissue.

[Lorien_the_First_One]

We've been debating something similar to this, actually. Sunder, Improved Sunder, Destruction, Eagle Claw Strike, and the like would be fortification modifying effects instead of (or in addition to some of) their current effects, and we'd add other abilities that add to or lower fortification percentage as well. (We'd also likely add more possible treasure effects than the current 25/75/100%)

A secondary thing we're considering to go along with that is changing undead, constructs, and other similar creatures to having a base 200% fortification, and if you bust it down below 100%, rendering them vulnerable to critical hits and sneak attacks.

All still under debate at the moment.

If you did that I'd suggest also giving rogues a specific special ability to reduce or bypass fortification.

[Kromize]

We've been debating something similar to this, actually. Sunder, Improved Sunder, Destruction, Eagle Claw Strike, and the like would be fortification modifying effects instead of (or in addition to some of) their current effects, and we'd add other abilities that add to or lower fortification percentage as well. (We'd also likely add more possible treasure effects than the current 25/75/100%)

A secondary thing we're considering to go along with that is changing undead, constructs, and other similar creatures to having a base 200% fortification, and if you bust it down below 100%, rendering them vulnerable to critical hits and sneak attacks.

All still under debate at the moment.

Is there going to be any change to fortification itself? Know that it's not going to be a 100% crit-proofer anymore is good. But what about sneak attacks? I think the whole idea of fortification working against sneak attacks just doesn't make sense. Does it ring a bell when your being sneak attacked or something?

[Matuse]

Take away player fortification at the same time as you take away monster fortification (including undead, elementals, oozes, constructs).

Fair's fair, after all.

And turning fortification into special vs crit confirm AC would be pointless. Either the bonus would have to be HUGE, or it wouldn't make any difference past the low levels (which is exactly how fortification is now). Nobody with a 20 AC at level 20 is going to have a crit fail to confirm against them, unless heavy fort is supplying about 50 points of special AC against the confirmation. I rather doubt that it will. Let's say heavy fort gives 10 points of AC. That bumps you up to a 30, and monsters will NEVER fail to confirm (because you can confirm on a 1). May as well not have it at all. Nobody is going to start caring about their AC, since the amount of AC they would need to start including would be prohibitively difficult.

Want to make fortification work better? Have it be a modification that ONLY appears on armor/robes/docents. And if it appears on that item, then it's the only effect which does. Instead of having fort thrown around on any one of 10 different body slots (and piled on with a whole bunch of other mods, so you don't need to sacrifice anything to get it), you either wear some kind of fort armor, or you don't get fort.

[Kromize]

Hmmm...let me get this straight. The OP says 100% Fortification is bad because it is essentially "required" for all toons. Nevermind the fact it is fairly easy to get.

Right. Having an item like that in a game is...pointless.

Currently, there are: 25%, 75%, and 100% fort items. Why there are only these 3 baffles me. Why not: 10, 20, 30, 40, 50...etc...

I might agree it's too easy to get and should prolly be restricted further. Having full fortification by 9th level does indeed seem too early to have it but the way some of those mobs in Gianthold hit, it really does seem necessary to many people.

For an item to be 'necessary' is a fault. They need to fix something if having 100% fortification is absolutely necessary.

Perhaps 25% fortification should only be availble to toons 9th level and higher. 75% fortification to 11th level and higher and 100% fortification to 13th level toons and higher. You'd still get your 100% fortification while running Gianthold but maybe you'd be forced to hold off running that stuff until 11th level or so instead of 9th or 10th level when most people start it these days.

That would be...weird...to say the least. First half of the game there is no such thing as fort, second half you expected to have heavy...

Don't change Fortification too radically. Just tweak the level requirements for it.

I disagree. Tweaking the level requirements won't fix the problem, it will reduce the amount of game(player levels) afflicted with the problem.

Your only reason that it "shouldn't occur in this game" is that it hurts those players that don't have it, probably because base damage is scaled up to account for the fact that many players will be immune to crits.

It's a must have item, that's easy to find, that everyone is expected to have, and even mobs are programmed based on the assumption of having it. That's just pointless. Could have a better game without it.

But isn't not having it what hurts players, since the beefed up base damage x the crit?

Correct. Anybody who doesn't have it on is hurt, because of the way mobs are programmed. I play through low levels w/o any fort, and it's fun with the occasional crit here and there, those "Oh sh##!" moments make it more fun.

Anyway, I think the most sensible thing is to have fort gear give a static bonus to AC for purposes of confirming a crit. That is, a double "20" roll will always crit, and a Heavy Fort item (say, +35 AC equivalence) on a low AC fighter will give the same chance of a crit as a high AC fighter with no fort item.

I agree with this. Also, make more levels of fortification(25, 75, 100...really? Whoever thought of this must've been taking some weird drugs), like, 10, 20, 30...etc...or based off of bunus ac vs crit roll, +5, +10, +15, +20, +25, etc...

Besides, it's no fun hitting for the same damage every single hit, no matter what. It's almost like they forgot what it meant to be hit critically or sneak attacked.

[Angelus_dead]

Don't change Fortification too radically. Just tweak the level requirements for it.

Delaying the problem a few levels does not fix it.

Here is an easy way to understand the problem:
Incoming critical hits are either fun or not fun. If they are not fun, then it is bad for the game to allow low-level characters to be critted. If they are fun, then it is bad for the game for high-level characters to never be critted.

Incoming critical hits should not be something that goes away at X level of item progression.

[Monkey_Archer]

We've been debating something similar to this, actually. Sunder, Improved Sunder, Destruction, Eagle Claw Strike, and the like would be fortification modifying effects instead of (or in addition to some of) their current effects, and we'd add other abilities that add to or lower fortification percentage as well. (We'd also likely add more possible treasure effects than the current 25/75/100%)

A secondary thing we're considering to go along with that is changing undead, constructs, and other similar creatures to having a base 200% fortification, and if you bust it down below 100%, rendering them vulnerable to critical hits and sneak attacks.

All still under debate at the moment.

I like it

Is that a hint that we may get 150% fort items? I know my wizards would be very appreciative... may even be able to use that garbage we call yugo int pots?

[Therilith]

Take away player fortification at the same time as you take away monster fortification (including undead, elementals, oozes, constructs).

Fair's fair, after all.

Not sure if giving mobs and players the exact same abilities in the name of fairness is the best way to balance content.

[Angelus_dead]

And turning fortification into special vs crit confirm AC would be pointless. Either the bonus would have to be HUGE, or it wouldn't make any difference past the low levels (which is exactly how fortification is now). Nobody with a 20 AC at level 20 is going to have a crit fail to confirm against them, unless heavy fort is supplying about 50 points of special AC against the confirmation. I rather doubt that it will. Let's say heavy fort gives 10 points of AC.

If you take a good suggestion and edit it to replace the good numbers with bad numbers, it becomes a bad suggestion.

[Angelus_dead]

We've been debating something similar to this, actually. Sunder, Improved Sunder, Destruction, Eagle Claw Strike, and the like would be fortification modifying effects instead of (or in addition to some of) their current effects, and we'd add other abilities that add to or lower fortification percentage as well. (We'd also likely add more possible treasure effects than the current 25/75/100%)

Players would certainly enjoy that when it comes to attacking those famous 50% fort raid bosses, but I'll try predicting what would happen regarding incoming damage to player characters (as player characters are far more likely to wear Fortification items than monsters are)

In the large majority of combats where no enemy has a Sunder ability, the situation would remain exactly the same, and high-level characters are totally immune to critical hits and sneak attacks (except for a narrow window of player error toggling items). But in the minority of battles where a monster does have Sunder, critical and sneak damage becomes a possibility again- but only until we get Ultra-Heavy Fortification items and can ignore it once more.

That does introduce some more complexity, and at least salvages some of the itemization gameplay (players facing a choice between a 175% fort item or a 100% item with several other bonuses). But it creates arbitrary-feeling binary situations, where each encounter is either No-Crits or Crits-Possible. That adds complexity, which is sometimes beneficial, but I suspect not in this case.

It certainly hurts verisimilitude:
1. "Oh, some Vulkorim Hunters and Menechetarun Crushers. I'd better get on this Ultra-Heavy Fort because the scorps can Sunder"
2. "Here comes the Pit Fiend and his Barbazu Shock Troopers. Stick with Minos because they have no fort reducers".

Is that a fun subject for players to think about? Yet another category of specific monster abilities countered by a specific item from your inventory? The alternative suggestion (to make Fortification a penalty to confirmation d20 rolls) would mean that any monster with a really high attack bonus would pose a threat of critting player characters who dumped their AC.

Another very important concern is that allowing monsters to reduce Fortification with Sunder will further tilt the balance in favor of melee warriors who are zero-AC ultra-hp, by making characters who are medium in AC and hp likely to be two-shotted by a lucky monster. Meanwhile the ultra-hp character can survive the crits, but only if his hp is kept fairly high, so the party leader is pushed to swap the medium-AC melee guy for another cleric, and the proportion of players that are "allowed" to engage the monsters is reduced. (The alternate confirmation-penalty suggestion would help the medium-AC characters, because they'd be able to use Heavy Fort so that most monsters can't crit them, while the zero-AC guys are critted frequently)

I guess it depends on if you want to (again) increase the importance of high hp totals.

we'd add other abilities that add to or lower fortification percentage as well.

I don't see how character options (feats, APs, etc) have space for another category of defensive abilities to be a fun choice. (Thus, I make suggestions to tie Fortification into AC so that existing options gain additional meaning)

[spyderwolf]

how do you come up with some of the stupidest ideas izuall? your a fairly smart guy. but every week it seems you propose a change thats borderline ******** at best.

its post like this that have gotten some of the stupidest changes added to the game in the past.

you hardly even play the game anymore man. at least play everyday for more than 1 week every 2 months before ya make game change suggestions that can completely change the game.