Tying AC to fortification

[kernal42]

A fleshy in a dress should get hit by more critical hits than a fleshy in plate and shield - its easier to get to the important bits. a la Fort

This should also stand for getting hit in general i.e. AC

I disagree here. It's much easier to avoid getting hit unarmored than covered in iron. The difference is that those covered in iron should be, in general, hurt less when they do get hit.

Of course this argument, much like yours, is wholly unrelated to D&D and, therefore, the mechanics we use in DDO.

-Kernal

[Hafeal]

OP, it is an intriguing idea and well presented in this thread.

I'm certainly not out to gimp anyone's build, and the system would have to be pitched accordingly to avoid that. However, I think that for something so useful, there should be some tradeoff that must be made to reach 100 percent fort.

I agree - but for players with existing characters and invested gear and time - you will never convince them otherwise. Geez, people have left the game over changes (WoP comes to mind). Asking a certain segment of players to accept change is like asking Republicans and Democrats to get along. Best 'o luck.


And I agree with attempts to spread out the usefulness and sacrifices players have to make:

I know what you might be thinking. "But Pres, I don't wear a protection item or a dex item, and my armor/bracer combination doesn't include an armor bonus!" Cat's grace and mage armor, more underused spells, can help offset this ...
Anyway, I feel like this would have a number of positive effect on other characters. Dex rogues would be better competition with strength rogues, since it's much easier to get them to 100 percent. Barbarians and favored souls would actually have a good reason to wear medium armor - brigadine, hide armor, scalemail and chainmail wouldn't be so utterly worthless anymore. Any warforged would have reason to consider taking improved fortification - heck, you could even let it stay at 100 percent, the immunity to healing seems like a big enough penalty to justify it. It makes S&B, especially at low levels, a viable strategy both to avoid hits and increase fort. On any character, AC would be a useful value, even in epics. In fact, if enemies had even a small chance to crit opponents, I think reducing their to-hit bonus would be a good balancing move.

[kernal42]

The solution is to make available better AC options on gear at mid/high levels, when AC starts really falling behind, not to try and tie it in to other things that are not related in an effort to make them more appealing. The problem with simply giving players access to more AC is of course game balance...players becoming "unhit-able" except on nat 20's. This is very difficult to achieve at end-game except for a small percentage of players who really work at it.

This is unlikely.
Gear choices are what *create* the AC mismatch problem. Mid-high levels are where many good-AC gear options become available, but also many good-dps gear options become available. The general choice is to ignore one or the other to maximize your performance. The to-hit value is then tailored to what a reasonably-invested character can achieve so that invincibility is only achievable with the best available build/gear.

Adding more AC gear options would increase what an AC-focused character would be able to achieve, and should (for game balance) also increase mobs' to-hit values, in the end making it even harder for dps-toons to squeeze AC into their builds.

Adding options that increase both dps *and* AC will either be worse at both or as good/better at both. If they're worse, then dps builds will still choose the dps option; if they're better, then there's no sacrifice made to be dps at the expense of AC.

-Kernal

[Jhaeran]

I disagree here. It's much easier to avoid getting hit unarmored than covered in iron. The difference is that those covered in iron should be, in general, hurt less when they do get hit.

Of course this argument, much like yours, is wholly unrelated to D&D and, therefore, the mechanics we use in DDO.

-Kernal

True and true. But the whole magic "can't hit me in the nads" field off easily attainable items (lvl 11 helm that protects the important bits AND give 20hp...) is OP.

Unarmored running around should possibly prevent getting hit (i.e. dex) but not protect against damage from the hit (or necessarily the important bits).

armor, helm and shield should have some benefit over the lack of in terms of either getting hit (which it does somewhat) and/or taking damage. I don't even have an S&B but think they filled a useful niche.

[varusso]

This is unlikely.
Gear choices are what *create* the AC mismatch problem. Mid-high levels are where many good-AC gear options become available, but also many good-dps gear options become available. The general choice is to ignore one or the other to maximize your performance. The to-hit value is then tailored to what a reasonably-invested character can achieve so that invincibility is only achievable with the best available build/gear.

Adding more AC gear options would increase what an AC-focused character would be able to achieve, and should (for game balance) also increase mobs' to-hit values, in the end making it even harder for dps-toons to squeeze AC into their builds.

Adding options that increase both dps *and* AC will either be worse at both or as good/better at both. If they're worse, then dps builds will still choose the dps option; if they're better, then there's no sacrifice made to be dps at the expense of AC.

-Kernal

Cant say as i disagree, since my point was that DPS is DPS and tank is tank. "hate tanking' isnt really tanking, since in almost every situation you must give up the damage mitigation of a true tank in order to DPS enough to generate that hate. U9 changes will make it easier for the true tank to build aggro (but still needs more improvement to make the true ac/dr/fort tank as viable as it SHOULD be).

As much as i hate to say it, WOW has much of this right...non-dps melees have other hate-generating abilities to lock aggro on them (or at least to temporarily snap aggro to them), despite massive amounts of DPS being cranked out by other toons. Meh i really dont want to turn this into a WOW vs DDO debate either LOL

Anyway, as another poster said, AC is AC, fort is fort, and DR is DR. They are separate options intentionally.

[phum]

this idea would surely be too harsh for casters. if the goal is to enable making ac matter in higher levels and epic, this could be done giving the poor monsters u r worried about % of sure hit regardless of ac. i doubt u r worried about all the monsters in the quests. this would allow increased buffing of dex or ac, to make ac builds more viable against many of the monsters.

[varusso]

True and true. But the whole magic "can't hit me in the nads" field off easily attainable items (lvl 11 helm that protects the important bits AND give 20hp...) is OP.

Unarmored running around should possibly prevent getting hit (i.e. dex) but not protect against damage from the hit (or necessarily the important bits).

armor, helm and shield should have some benefit over the lack of in terms of either getting hit (which it does somewhat) and/or taking damage. I don't even have an S&B but think they filled a useful niche.

Its not OP. You can still be hit and damaged. You just cant be critted. 19/20 hits will land on you for listed damage (minus DR, including resists). The difference is that no one hit will knock the bejeezus out of you; it will hit you for the same-ish as the rest. For an AC build, the number of times you get hit period goes down. For non-ac builds (which far out number AC builds) you accept that you WILL get hit, but you can mitigate it to some degree using fort and DR (which ac builds can ALSO do on top of avoiding the hit altogether).

[Zaodon]

True and true. But the whole magic "can't hit me in the nads" field off easily attainable items (lvl 11 helm that protects the important bits AND give 20hp...) is OP.

Unarmored running around should possibly prevent getting hit (i.e. dex) but not protect against damage from the hit (or necessarily the important bits).

armor, helm and shield should have some benefit over the lack of in terms of either getting hit (which it does somewhat) and/or taking damage. I don't even have an S&B but think they filled a useful niche.

You need to understand that in Pen+Paper, Fortification ONLY comes on Armor. You can't get it on necklaces, helms, bracers, belts, boots, etc.

DDO did that. So, although their decision makes it hard to "logically justify", you need to just accept the "its magic" explanation and move on.

[varusso]

You need to understand that in Pen+Paper, Fortification ONLY comes on Armor. You can't get it on necklaces, helms, bracers, belts, boots, etc.

DDO did that. So, although their decision makes it hard to "logically justify", you need to just accept the "its magic" explanation and move on.

Apparently some people can accept that 'magic' justifies slinging elemental power with your fingers, enchanting metal to having slaying properties, and bending the forces of space/time to allow for instant teleportation.

But avoiding gnad shots via a mystical enchantment instead of just moving your knee is just out of the question

[Angelus_dead]

No, I do not want to sacrifice my 100% fort that is easily obtained

The fact that it is useful to get something powerful for a cheap cost is no justification for why the developers should let you have something powerful for a cheap cost. You'd have to explain why it should be easy for Sorcerers to click on a hat and get total immunity to critical hits.

Here's what the analysis comes down to:

Incoming critical hits are either good for combat gameplay, or bad for combat gameplay.
If they're good, then 100% Fortification should be removed from high-level characters so their gameplay can be better.
If they're bad, then 100% Fortification should be added to low-level characters so their gameplay can be better.

Either way you go on the gameplay question, for players to become fully immune to crits at level 11 is not a defensible design.

[Zaodon]

The fact that it is useful to get something powerful for a cheap cost is no justification for why the developers should let you have something powerful for a cheap cost. You'd have to explain why it should be easy for Sorcerers to click on a hat and get total immunity to poison.

Here's what the analysis comes down to:

Incoming poison are either good for combat gameplay, or bad for combat gameplay.
If they're good, then 100% poison immunity should be removed from high-level characters so their gameplay can be better.
If they're bad, then 100% poison immunity should be added to low-level characters so their gameplay can be better.

Either way you go on the gameplay question, for players to become fully immune to poison at level 11 is not a defensible design.

See what I did there?

[varusso]

The fact that it is useful to get something powerful for a cheap cost is no justification for why the developers should let you have something powerful for a cheap cost. You'd have to explain why it should be easy for Sorcerers to click on a hat and get total immunity to critical hits.

Here's what the analysis comes down to:

Incoming critical hits are either good for combat gameplay, or bad for combat gameplay.
If they're good, then 100% Fortification should be removed from high-level characters so their gameplay can be better.
If they're bad, then 100% Fortification should be added to low-level characters so their gameplay can be better.

Either way you go on the gameplay question, for players to become fully immune to crits at level 11 is not a defensible design.

I dont have to explain anything (although i already HAVE done so). Its already this way. People wanting to nerf my toon need to justify it TO ME and have not done so. The fort system works just fine as is. Bending fort over the sofa to try and fix AC is not acceptable. Period. Especially since it WOULDNT fix AC.

[kernal42]

People wanting to nerf my toon need to justify it TO ME and have not done so.

...no they don't.

Unless you're a developer, no justification for you, personally, is necessary. No justification for your toons is ever necessary.

[varusso]

...no they don't.

Unless you're a developer, no justification for you, personally, is necessary. No justification for your toons is ever necessary.

Seeing as how this is a debate about PLAYER opinions on the proposal, and not feedback on a change the devs have announced, yes they do. And since the devs monitor player feedback on any changes/issues, once again, yes they do.

[kernal42]

Seeing as how this is a debate about PLAYER opinions on the proposal, and not feedback on a change the devs have announced, yes they do. And since the devs monitor player feedback on any changes/issues, once again, yes they do.

Only if you are some mystical representation of the entire player base. There are always outliers who will never be convinced, and for whom it is a waste of time to try to convince.

I mean, that's not you, here, because nobody thinks this particular implementation is a good idea. But the point stands.

-Kernal

[Zaodon]

Level 0 items allow you to ignore disease.
Level 0 items allow you to ignore blindness.
Level 0 items allow you to ignore breathing underwater.
Level 5 items (no level req if bound to account) allow you to ignore poison.
Level 5 items (no level req if bound to account) allow you to permanently feather fall.
Level 8 items allow you to be immune to Death Effects.
Level 9 items allow you to be immune to fear.

A Race allows you to be immune to disease, poison, Holds, and breathing underwater, and makes you automatically 25% immune to critical hits.

It is utterly nonsensical to claim that a level 11 item which grants immunity only to criticals (but you still are hit) is "overpowered". Utterly nonsensical.

[varusso]

Only if you are some mystical representation of the entire player base. There are always outliers who will never be convinced, and for whom it is a waste of time to try to convince.

I mean, that's not you, here, because nobody thinks this particular implementation is a good idea. But the point stands.

-Kernal

I never claimed to be the representative of the collective player base, though I daresay in this case my opinion IS representative of the vast majority. I said they had to justify it to ME. Dont make this into a trolling debate over semantics, or into a deliberate misinterpretation of statements, k? I believe you are a tad too intelligent to legitimately misunderstand what I am saying. Pretending to do so only derails the thread for no good purpose.

[varusso]

Level 0 items allow you to ignore disease.
Level 0 items allow you to ignore blindness.
Level 0 items allow you to ignore breathing underwater.
Level 5 items (no level req if bound to account) allow you to ignore poison.
Level 5 items (no level req if bound to account) allow you to permanently feather fall.
Level 9 items allow you to be immune to fear.

A Race allows you to be immune to disease, poison, and breathing underwater, and makes you automatically 25% immune to critical hits.

It is utterly nonsensical to claim that a level 11 item which grants immunity only to criticals (but you still are hit) is "overpowered". Utterly nonsensical.

Dont forget deathblock

Available through multiple items, enhancements, and spells.

[Zaodon]

Dont forget deathblock

Available through multiple items, enhancements, and spells.

Added (DB on items makes them ML:8 I believe)
Also, added Holds to WF immunities.

[varusso]

Yah pretty sure i have seen it on lvl 8 robes and shields, though i generally dont worry about it till i get my necro trinket at 9

Oddly enough never seen one below 10 or 12 on a docent though

Also add most stat damaging effects to WF :P