Quasi-Iterative Attack Bonus For Monsters

[Borror0]

Problem:
Since DDO uses a d20 for NPC's attack rolls, all it takes for a player's Armor Class to become completely useless is for the NPCs' attack bonus to be nineteen points over the player's AC. As a result, very few players invest in Armor class because the sacrifices required to obtain meaningful Armor Class are just too great for what is gained in exchange.

From a game design perspective, this is bad because it reduces variety and depth: characters that focus on damage all have the same defense against attacks, 5%, instead of being able to consider the trade offs of gaining more Armor Class.

Suggestion:
For each mobs with a BAB high enough to have them, give them a random bonus on their attack rolls as if they were making one attack of an iterative chain. Mob attack animations are too slow to make it really iterative - most monsters would usually die too quickly to reach the end of their attack sequence - so instead treat it as if each attack they make was randomly chosen from the iterative list.

For compatibility with existing game balance, the average attack bonus in the quasi-iterative system should equal their current attack bonus.

The simplest way to implement that is as follows: for every mob with BAB 10 or more, each of his attacks gets a bonus of (1d3-2)*5. So it will be a -5, +0, or +5 bonus on each of attack. The result is that the range of meaningful ACs increases by 5 in each direction; yet the AC that gets hit 50% of the time will still be hit at 50%. If a character currently (barely) is hit on 5% of attacks, in this system there's a 33% chance that an attack could hit 30% of the time, meaning it's harder to reach the AC cap. To take it further for higher-level content, mobs with BAB 20+ could get a (1d5-3)*5 bonus. That way, the 2-19 range expands to -8 to 29, thus more than doubling the range.


PS: The idea is Angelus_dead's. I wanted to refer it in a post but when I did a forum search for it, I realized that it has not been elaborated much on these boards and never had been posted in the OP of any thread. I thought it would deserved its own thread, for greater visibility and easy referencing.

[Borror0]

If you're going to give me neg rep for the OP, you could at least post something...

[Vhlad]

First, it wasn't me.

Second, why are you trying to increase monster to-hits? Isn't obtaining high AC for elite end-game (or epic) restricting enough? Doesn't the grazing hit system balance extremely high AC characters already? Your suggestion increases the to-hit of 20 BAB monsters by up to +10. Is that necessary end-game?

Yes, you're also reducing the to-hit of 20 BAB monsters by up to -10. But how does this make AC more relevant for non AC builds? Instead of 80AC being useless, my 70AC will be useless? Great!

I understand your intent is to combine this with an anti-seeker bonus (of +20?) as a replacement to heavy fortification. Even so, the effective AC range would still be too small by a large margin. Also, in the few cases where it helps, the effect would be nullified if monsters have (or are given) seeker bonuses. Furthermore, the degree of sacrifice that some classes/races/class combos must make to obtain useful AC vs. others is highly disparate, and when considering this the weight you want to put toward AC with the fortification change becomes unfair. WotC did not value AC that highly [where that = as high as you'd like to value it with the fortification change] when they designed SRD classes & items. If they did, then naturally high AC classes would be less powerful in other areas than they are presently, or, conversely, naturally low AC classes would be more powerful in other areas than they are presently.

Given all the available sources of AC from itemization, feats, enhancements, attribute points, class abilities, many of which are all-or-nothing, the obtainable difference in AC for certain class/race/build combinations vs. others is still well beyond 39. Also, the full 39 variation, or 59 with anti-seeker +20, will not even apply in practise if monster to-hit is too high or if relative ACs are too low (which will be so in most end-game cases, unless current end-game monster to-hits are globally nerfed by 30).

i.e. my 20 ranger has 2 feats, 26 enhancement points, 6 build points, and 7 item slots contributing toward AC, and with haste + barkskin he can reach 54AC. If the suggestion in this thread was implemented, even with a +20 anti-seeker bonus from heavy fort, his fortification in epic would end up being close to zero and he would be hit 95% of the time. Not only would all that effort and sacrifice for AC still be largely unhelpful end-game, but suddenly he'll also be highly susceptible to crits. Meanwhile, a 18/1/1 finesse build in robes can be sitting at 16 higher AC thanks to monk splash and highly inflated ability scores [still hit 95% of the time, but with anti-seeker +20 he may have 50% (or higher with paladin/bard song/recitation) protection vs critical hits]. In this case, any DPS differences do not compare to the extreme difference in incoming damage due to critical hits at end-game between the builds.

Comparing class combinations more dissimilar than 20 ranger vs 18/1/1 creates even larger differences. How is a 20 THF frenzy barb/kensai fighter/kotc or hotd paladin/bard/cleric/favored soul/wizard/sorc supposed to get end-game AC within the helpful range? You're basically saying: everyone should be a monk splash, wearing robes if possible. I think itemization would need a complete overhaul (including a consolidation of many AC bonuses) for such a combination of changes to be accepted.

[Artos_Fabril]

For compatibility with existing game balance, the average attack bonus in the quasi-iterative system should equal their current attack bonus.

Actually, if the average is equal to the current bonus, that means that 1/2 the time it will be equal or higher which doesn't do much to encourage players who dump AC now to focus on it in after the change.

Although it's certainly open to debate, I would say the range of meaningful ACs doesn't extend fully from a 2-19 on the die roll, but rather is pretty static from level 1 on, which is to say only the top half of a d20. At level 1, your have a base 10 AC and a base 0 to +1 BAB, which means your chance to be hit, for a no-dex bonus robe wearer, is 50-55% (less, because if the robe wearer is an arcane caster he can easily push his AC to 18 with mage armor and a shield spell)

But anyway, +1 because at least you're trying. I don't agree with your numbers or your conclusion, but discussing it is highly unlikely to hurt the game.

[Borror0]

Second, why are you trying to increase monster to-hits?

Don't think only in terms of end game. While Epic monsters' to-hit are out of whack, a good number of level 10+ dungeons have at least defensible to-hit values (at least on Normal and Hard). Doing so would decrease the amount of rebalancing. While it's true that some rebalancing would have to take place with Epic monsters, doing it this way messes up with the least amount of quests.

Yes, you're also reducing the to-hit of 20 BAB monsters by up to -10. But how does this make AC more relevant for non AC builds? Instead of 80AC being useless, my 70AC will be useless? Great! [...]*I understand your intent is to combine this with an anti-seeker bonus (of +20?) as a replacement to heavy fortification. Even so, the effective AC range would still be too small by a large margin.

You think that 59 values of AC are not enough?

To have mobs with +80 to-hit is insane. Makes no sense. Their to-hit should be nerfed, with or without this change. But, even if the mobs have a base to-hit of 80, it means that every Armor class from 51 to 110 is beneficial in some way. That does not sound reasonable to you? 51 isn't that hard to get.

If they nerf their to-hit down to +70, for example. If you combine it to the anti-seeker suggestion (+20 for the sake of argument), the total of meaningful ACs will range from 41 to 100. That's a very, very large range - more than three times the current one. It would cover pretty much any build that tries to invest in at least some AC (and further changes to itemization could further facilitate this). Heck, you could reduce the to-hit to +60, and have a 31 to 90 range.

And, of course, not all monsters in an instance have the same to-hit. A few might be higher and a few others might be lower. So the real range is even wider.

Also, in the few cases where it helps, the effect would be nullified if monsters have (or are given) seeker bonuses.

True. But you don't have to give seeker bonuses to everyone. It might be a good idea sometimes, but not all the time.

Furthermore, the degree of sacrifice that some classes/races/class combos must make to obtain useful AC vs. others is highly disparate

That is called a class/racial ability. That's supposed to happen. If a class/race becomes overpowered, you either nerf it or buff the others. Not rocket surgery.

[Vhlad]

You think that 59 values of AC are not enough?

To have mobs with +80 to-hit is insane. Makes no sense. Their to-hit should be nerfed, with or without this change. But, even if the mobs have a base to-hit of 80, it means that every Armor class from 41 to 100 is beneficial in some way. That does not sound reasonable to you? 41 isn't that hard to get.

How is 41 AC beneficial if base to-hit is 80? Using heavy fort replaced with anti-seeker +20, 41AC becomes 61 vs. crits (assuming the monster does not have a seeker bonus). Using your -10 to +10 suggestion, a base to-hit of 80 can drop down to 70. At this point we are 61 AC vs a lowest to-hit and critical confirmation roll of 70, i.e. we're still hit 95% of the time and would effectively have 0% fort. Wouldn't it be more like 51+ AC, not 41?

As an exercise, work-out how each one of the following pure classes self-buff to a sustainable 51 AC.

1. WF sorc/wizard
2. THF barbarian
3. THF kensai
4. THF warchanter
5. THF kotc/hotd
6. str & int-based rogue
7. WF favored soul/cleric

Now, consider that 51 AC does essentially nothing for them, because at this AC level they are hit 95% of the time and have no fort. The next 20AC points increases their fortification while maintaining the fact that they are hit 95% of the time. So now we have a 71 AC benchmark to approach heavy fort. How on earth do these classes get 71 AC? You might as well throw them out the window and tell everyone to make TWF monk splashes or evasive monk splash casters across the board. Oh, and you're telling everyone to fill ~7 item slots with rare named, crafted, or one-of-a-kind bonus to AC gear. You might as well throw 90% of the equipment that people farm for in the game out the window.

Look, on its own this idea is not that terrible. I don't like it because widely varying and randomized monster-to hits adds too much unpredictability and spike potential to combat for my taste (the iterative to-hit penalty in the SRD is defined and can be planned for each round, whereas a randomized iterative bonus/penalty limits the players control and subsequent strategy (relative to the SRD)). However, in the context of using the suggestion in this thread in conjunction with replacing fortification with an anti-seeker bonus, I believe the combined system is still terrible.

[Monkey_Archer]

First, forget the anti-seeker fort replacement... its a bad idea... give it up

Second, giving monsters an iterative attack bonus IMO would be a good idea providing:
-fortification remains the as it is now
-base attack bonus gets nerfed by the same amount as the largest iterative bonus (ie. 0, +5, +10 bonuses would result in -10 to base attack)

[gavagai]

As an exercise, work-out how each one of the following pure classes self-buff to a sustainable 51 AC.

1. WF sorc/wizard
2. THF barbarian
3. THF kensai
4. THF warchanter
5. THF kotc/hotd
6. str & int-based rogue
7. WF favored soul/cleric

I agree here. The problem isn't the mob to-hit, but rather the investment and itemization side of the equation.

Turbine needs to figure out how much AC inflation they want, and design it so it is possible. If they adore high to-hits in endgame, than they need to made weaker and higher ML versions of the best raid-grind AC gear available to hoi palloi. If they want to de-munchkinize, than just swallow that pride, lower to-hits, and downgrade the bonuses on +Dodge and +insight loot. Grandfathering the existing high AC gear.

If you made, for instance, a +2 Dodge ring (ML: 12) somewhat easily available and a +3 Dodge belt (ML:15), you'd go a much farther way towards encouraging "casual AC" than by the iterative bonuses alone. Everyone would be 5-10 days of bargain-hunting the AH from having an effective -- though not uber -- AC during your career.

Once you have half of the above list reaching that sustainable 51 AC without bitter agony and heartache (THFs may need S&B or a +insight Greatsword to hit it, though), then you're in the zone where modifying mob to-hits will really work out well.

[Borror0]

How is 41 AC beneficial if base to-hit is 80?

Ya, brain fart. Fixed the post.

I won't reply to the rest of your post, because I said that end game should be rebalanced unless itemization is improved. +80 to-hit is insane.

If you made, for instance, a +2 Dodge ring (ML: 12) somewhat easily available and a +3 Dodge belt (ML:15), you'd go a much farther way towards encouraging "casual AC" than by the iterative bonuses alone. Everyone would be 5-10 days of bargain-hunting the AH from having an effective -- though not uber -- AC during your career.

It would not do that, because of the way Dodge bonuses stack. Your reasoning would apply to most bonus types like Deflection or Insight, though, and that is exactly why Dodge bonuses on items should be replaced. It's impossible for Turbine to create a smooth progression otherwise.

[BurningDownTheHouse]

I won't reply to the rest of your post, because I said that end game should be rebalanced unless itemization is improved. +80 to-hit is insane.

Sorry Borro, but that's not good enough.
When you ask non AC oriented classes to make signifficant sacrifices in order to not be one-shot, it's too limitting and to adds to the pervailing cooky-cutter mentality. Please don't decrease my existing play options when you're trying to add new ones.

[Vhlad]

If you made, for instance, a +2 Dodge ring (ML: 12) somewhat easily available and a +3 Dodge belt (ML:15), you'd go a much farther way towards encouraging "casual AC" than by the iterative bonuses alone. Everyone would be 5-10 days of bargain-hunting the AH from having an effective -- though not uber -- AC during your career.

Maybe, but we're also taking up way too many item slots here. I think we'd have to start seeing consolidation of AC items. 4 years have gone by and we're still taking up a bracer slot with dodge 2 and ring slot with chat ring for AC. We'd have to start seeing something like dodge +2 & dodge +3 on the same item, or dodge + insight or dodge + deflection or deflection + insight combined, etc. As it stands with current itemization, high AC is a such total investment that it is not really fair for some classes/races/class combinations.

[Borror0]

We'd have to start seeing something like dodge +2 & dodge +3 on the same item, or dodge + insight or dodge + deflection or deflection + insight combined, etc..

It would make more sense to start adding minor AC bonuses to items that are good for other things than AC. Like that, you get a small AC bonus for grabbing an item that you would probably wear even if it had no bonus to AC on it. As a result, the sacrifices made to have meaningful AC would be greatly diminished.

As it stands with current itemization, high AC is a such total investment that it is not really fair for some classes/races/class combinations.

Yes, but you're forgetting something: it's not because it's not perfect that it's not an improvement.

A change like the one describe in the OP is necessary to make Armor Class meaningful, in any shape or form. While it's true that "it's not enough on its own", the same can be said of every single change that could solve the AC imbalance. The problem is a multifaceted problem. To solve it, several changes to the game will have to be made. If you reject every single change on the ground that it has flaws and does not solve everything, you're preventing any improvement to be made.

[Artos_Fabril]

A change like the one describe in the OP is necessary to make Armor Class meaningful, in any shape or form. While it's true that "it's not enough on its own", the same can be said of every single change that could solve the AC imbalance. The problem is a multifaceted problem. To solve it, several changes to the game will have to be made. If you reject every single change on the ground that it has flaws and does not solve everything, you're preventing any improvement to be made.

The problem is the D20 system itself. Sure we can change that, but then it's not really D&D is it?

[gavagai]

The problem is the D20 system itself. Sure we can change that, but then it's not really D&D is it?

Well, the d20 is only a problem when you have gonzo disparities in ACs. And the disparities only exist here (and in some PnP campaigns) when you introduce equipment that gives massive stackable AC bonuses.

If we could eliminate much of that equipment, limit static item bonuses to generic +Armor, +Shield, +Deflection, +Natural AC bonuses and only introduce the dodge/circumstance/insight/untyped bonuses for fringe class abilities, you'd have a much more balanced AC system where characters could be both monsters in DPS and somewhat hard to hit, as well.

But of course that ain't gonna happen. So if we can't eliminate the d20-busting disparities at the top end by lowering ACs, the least Turbine could do it increase it from the bottom end by making stacking bonuses more readily available and less slot-intensive.

I really like Vhlad's idea of getting one item with, for instance, a +2 and +3 Dodge Bonus. Or Dodge/Insight bonuses. Could revolutionize AC!

But even if Turbine doesn't do that, they really need to make AC less grind intensive. Now with TR giving players an alternative to Epic grinding, hopefully Turbine will realize that that kind of loot grind is not the only thing to keep us busy; character design is the thing that will keep us running through content, tweaking, specializing, &c. Easy-access AC gear will encourage more of those DoS reincarnations than new Grind-wrothy items with an extra +1 or +2 AC will.

[Saldon]

This thread interests me greatly, but I would love to know if there is any database out there that characterizes Mobs to-hit bonuses by level / difficulty. In other words, what can I expect a mob to have as an attack modifier in a level 18 quest on Hard difficulty? I would love to have access to this resource.

I am very discouraged (as an experienced gamer, new to DDO) when I constantly hear the vets say, "AC is meaningless in this game". If there is data to back this up, (it seems there must be from what I read in this thread) what is it? I do understand the difficulty of making AC and To-hit work with a D20 when bonuses equal 3 to 4 times that number. At what level / difficulty can I expect to encounter mobs with +60 to-hit?

I have tried multiple searches with slight;y different wording, but can't find anything out there....

[mournbladereigns]

The problem is the D20 system itself. Sure we can change that, but then it's not really D&D is it?

Well, that makes me think since they've already blown the D20 out of the water with the range of To-hits versus AC, a change as a nod towards that would be a good idea. Specifically compressing actual to-hit bonuses within a given range to an exponential scale. To-hit bonuses give a diminishing return, and reduced effective to-hit mod to D20 roll. Its a to-hit bonus nerf, you achieve diminishing returns for higher to hits under this system.

Easiest way to do this is to set a default hit AC where you/mobs automatically hit 95% of the time, Then compress the scale beyond that. Lets say To-hit minus 30 = equals auto Hit, miss on 1 territory. That is if mobs to-hit minus - 30 >= your AC they only hit on a 1. This gives us a 20 AC range variation for up to +30 to hit, reducing the overwhelming nature of the high to hit.

So lets examine +80 to hit mobs... They auto-hit 95% of time an AC of 50 or less (+80-30 = <=50 equals auto-hit)

So we have a table like =

Actual To-Hit bonus -30 Effective to hit D20 roll needed to hit Hits AC
>= 0 +0 20+ 50-
+1 +1 19+ 51-
+2 +2 18+ 52-
+3 +3 17+ 53
+4 +4 16+ 54
+5 +5 15+ 55
+6 +6 14+ 56
+7 +7 13+ 57
+8 +8 12+ 58
+9 +9 11+ 59
+10 +10 10+ 60
+11-12 +11 9+ 61
+13-14 +12 8+ 62
+15-16 +13 7+ 63
+17-18 +14 6+ 64
+19-20 +15 5+ 65
+21-22 +16 4+ 66
+23-24 +17 3+ 67
+25-26 +18 2+ 68
+27-28 +19 2+ 69
+29+ +20 2+ 70

So new usable AC range = 50-70. You can compress/vary this range for best fit to existing items/armor values/to-hit values.

Net effect, more usable AC range with existing items, AC and AC tanking becomes more effective. Hitting is less sure/auto in combat.

[ciopo]

since we don't see the attack rolls of mobs against us, a relative simple possibility would be to give mobs not only a crit range, but also a miss range: instead of automatically missing only on 1, it can be changed to a miss range of 1 to X, depending on quest mob and whatever else factor.
this way, everyone don't have only 5% of base defense, but 5X%.

All players would see is that they would averagely be missed more often from some mobs or the other, but the "high benchmarks" wouldn't change because rolls of 20-19-18-whatever would still be hitting at the same attack bonus of before.

heck, you may even consolidate it to racial bonuses, so they are actually useful for non-ac builds.

halfling would become "all mobs attacking you have their automatic miss atack range increased by one"

dwarves would be +4 range from giants.