Tying AC to fortification

[Bargol]

Interesting idea....but no it makes AC builds, or builds that can slot in AC adding items great, but my level 20 WF barb would have like what 30% fort? or I could gimp him and never rage to get to 75%?

The idea just falls apart for so many builds. If this was implemented everyone would scream at you for casting rage spell.

[Cyr]

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.

Not a very good argument A_D.

Having a low fort number at low levels is not very important because the spike damage mobs deal is not as drastic as at higher levels.

As such it makes perfect sense for fort (which mitigates spike damage) to increase in % as the levels go up.

Therefore the basic premise of your binary argument is flawed.

[xoccox]

I don't understand why you would want to tie higher AC to fortification...

Higher levels of AC would more logically be tied to straight DR. Above AC 20, grant 1 Bonus DR for every 5 points of AC

So you would get 1 point of extra DR at 25AC, 2 at 30 etc. So in the AC range of 50 you would get 7 bonus DR or 8 at 55 AC.

It makes midrange and higher AC useful, and doesn't require wholesale changes in the fortification system.

[Angelus_dead]

Not a very good argument A_D.
Having a low fort number at low levels is not very important because the spike damage mobs deal is not as drastic as at higher levels.
As such it makes perfect sense for fort (which mitigates spike damage) to increase in % as the levels go up.
Therefore the basic premise of your binary argument is flawed.

That doesn't make sense.

The amount of damage put out by a high-level monster is not a pre-existing condition that player traits must be designed around. Instead, monster stats are something that the designers made up themselves, and are free to change in accordance with the game mechanics.

Historically DDO monsters have been given higher damage for content level 12+ because players became immune to critical hits. It would be perverse to use high-level monster damage as a justification for players gaining crit immunity; it'd be a circular argument.

[Angelus_dead]

See what I did there?

Yes, you replaced the word Fortification with Poison, to show that the same logic implies that Poison Immunity is bad for gameplay.

That happens to be true as well.

DDO would be improved if immunity to poison was nerfed. That is a less important topic, because poison is actually weak and barely important even if you're not immune.

[PresentTense]

Yes, you replaced the word Fortification with Poison, to show that the same logic implies that Poison Immunity is bad for gameplay.

That happens to be true as well.

DDO would be improved if immunity to poison was nerfed. That is a less important topic, because poison is actually weak and barely important even if you're not immune.

I have to say, I agree with Angelus here. Blanket immunities as a whole make the game less interesting. Items or potions that remove or increase your resistance to poison, blindness and disease are perfectly fine, but immunity is different. I mean, one of the biggest complaints about epic content was the blanket immunity mobs were getting to half the things we wanted to use on them - so much so that the devs re-thought the content without epic ward. Yet one greensteel item can generate complete invulnerability to disease, blindness, poison, fear and death effects? And people still want more - I've seen threads asking for curse immunity, for pity's sake.

I'm not arguing for these things to be removed from the game for a few reasons. First, their effect is, in the end, minimal, and while I think the game would be more interesting without them, I don't think it would be all that much better. Second, removing these or making changes to them isn't going to have the wide-ranging positive effects I think the removal of the fort easy button would. And third, I'm already suggesting one change that makes the life of players more difficult - I'm not that much of a masochist .

Having a low fort number at low levels is not very important because the spike damage mobs deal is not as drastic as at higher levels.

And yet I have no idea what high level mob crit profiles even look like. Quick, without consulting a monster manual and assuming it's the same, what's the crit profile on an orthon? A gnoll? Harry? It could be 20/x2 or 15-20/x4 for all we know, because we're all immune to it. And I'm aware that in the process of finding out, we would die more. I just don't necessarily see that as a bad thing. So much "end game" content is so trivial at this point that we rarely die. It's all a huge grind because the devs have to do something to make it difficult to get the best gear, and every time someone suggests changing a mechanic to make it hard to complete people cry nerf. So instead, they set the drop rates low and make it repetitious and grindy, which people grumble about, but at least don't threaten to quit the game over (very often).

[HallowedOne]

Simply remove fortification from the game:

- Bosses & mobs will hit like they should on the books
- AC will become super ultra dope
- Fleshy Barbs & Kensais will only be able to tank Korthos`s Sahuagin

SPECIAL BONUS:
WF`s will consider taking IMPROVED FORTIFICATION!!!!

[donfilibuster]

/not signed

Merging AC with any other stat option like DR or fort takes away AC as a build option.
The whole point of customization is to give you choices and simplifying makes you have one less pick.

AC can be fixed in other ways, namely giving more AC options to choose from.
There's plenty already in D&D, not all in core, but there are, spells and feats mostly.

Weak AC is not unexpected in a high magic game as you can achieve high hit power.
But with better hitting comes better buffs and this is where DDO is lacking.

Likewise Fortification is not scarce at all, it is a defense you can have, not costly, not rare.
The low magic games is where you won't see fort as much as plate, but that's not the case with DDO.

So no need to reinvent the wheel, just gotta ask for stuff like greater mage armor.

[Habreno]

I'm saddened by the blatant ignorance on some posts here about the OP's topic content. You say that you don't want it changed; that's not what the OP is talking about. Instead, suggest alternative changes instead of debating the obvious "'weakened' characters vs fun in the game" which is what some of you are currently doing. The OP posted an idea, debate the idea rather than the effect on you specifically it will have (there are over a million others who play this game; you are NOT the only one!) and if you don't like it, come up with a better reason other than "because it will 'gimp' my character and make the game harder" because that response shows me that you don't care about the game, you just want your pixels and won't stop at anything to keep others from making it harder for you to get your pixels. Sad.

Now, there have been several ideas already posted; I had one on the second post of Page 2, I saw another idea on page 2 or 3, and so far nobody has made a decent comment on any of them. In fact the only comments made were about the other idea; that comment was "No, *insert words of your choice that mean i am scared about gimping my toon* and your idea is stupid/dumb/idiotic/*insert insulting adjetive here* so shut up" (put in a slightly humorous context) and not necessary.

INSTEAD... Debate the ideas without relying on petty insults. Please. I would have negative repped some of you personally and told you I did because of some of the comments; this is directed at those on both sides before anyone says that I favor one over the other. But as the rep system is borked I can't. That's for a different thread though.

[justagame]

IMO, this would be horrible, unless there was a total revamp to the AC system. Today, AC is not about the armor you armor you wear, or 'normal' attempts to armor yourself. You could have great heavy armor, shield, the best protection item, all the things you're supposed to do, and have an AC that's 20, 30, 40 or more less than what the right toon can get in robes --- and that wouldn't get you to the fortification needed.

Getting decent ac scores requires the right raid gear, a monk splash, the right PRE, or at least 2 out of the 3. There are so many stacking bonuses to AC, the difference between the attainable AC of a few specific builds, and EVERYONE else, is simply huge.

The result? Either the AC gain to fort would be so low that it would be easy to obtain 100% fort -- if it were higher, than only a few select AC builds could attain it.

[QuantumFX]

No thanks. So long as the devs are handing out to hit bonuses in the +90’s to mobs it will never be a workable system.

Though I am a fan of changing fortification to a % reduction of incoming extra damage from a crit and adding fortification reduction to AC reducing attacks.

[varusso]

I'm saddened by the blatant ignorance on some posts here about the OP's topic content. You say that you don't want it changed; that's not what the OP is talking about. Instead, suggest alternative changes instead of debating the obvious "'weakened' characters vs fun in the game" which is what some of you are currently doing. The OP posted an idea, debate the idea rather than the effect on you specifically it will have (there are over a million others who play this game; you are NOT the only one!) and if you don't like it, come up with a better reason other than "because it will 'gimp' my character and make the game harder" because that response shows me that you don't care about the game, you just want your pixels and won't stop at anything to keep others from making it harder for you to get your pixels. Sad.

Now, there have been several ideas already posted; I had one on the second post of Page 2, I saw another idea on page 2 or 3, and so far nobody has made a decent comment on any of them. In fact the only comments made were about the other idea; that comment was "No, *insert words of your choice that mean i am scared about gimping my toon* and your idea is stupid/dumb/idiotic/*insert insulting adjetive here* so shut up" (put in a slightly humorous context) and not necessary.

INSTEAD... Debate the ideas without relying on petty insults. Please. I would have negative repped some of you personally and told you I did because of some of the comments; this is directed at those on both sides before anyone says that I favor one over the other. But as the rep system is borked I can't. That's for a different thread though.

We dont NEED a better reason than 'it will gimp my character'. The CURRENT system of fort works just fine, without borking it by tying it to AC. And saying we dont like it and to LEAVE IT ALONE *IS* debating the point and offering a BETTER solution. You sure did come off high and mighty, criticizing the rest of the posters for name calling and insults, yet in the first few lines of your post, you have done the same thing. And presumed to try and enforce your view of how everyone else should respond to an idea they feel is bad.

Tying AC to fort is bad PERIOD. They are meant to be separate in order to provide MORE options, not LESS. Tying fort to AC *forces* every toon to invest in AC, including toons who have no hope of getting any real benefit to the ACTUAL purpose of AC in this game--to avoid being hit.

I dont know how many times or how many ways this needs to be said for it to get across. Of those millions of players who play this game, how many do you think play mages (or any other squishy for that matter) as opposed to actual AC tanks? I GUARANTEE the scales are tilted on the side of non AC tanks. So in order to 'buff' a niche group, it would require an effective nerf to everyone else AND require everyone else to rearrange their gear and constantly recast low-duration spells as well as drink more pots, burning through additional resources, only to get to LESS fort than we have now.

Theres a reason I dont drink bark skin pots on my mage or worry about the AC bonuses on items. Because the mob has to roll a 1 to miss me, whether i am completely naked or fully geared. Adding to the trouble by reducing my fort is NOT something I would support.

The answer is no. Find a different way to make AC tanking more appealing to the folks who would like to try it out. Leave my fort alone.

[Myliel]

Sorry if I seem to steer the topic away from its current direction, but it looks to me that the initial problem is being ignored and it's just turning into a flamefest... or something like that (and please excuse my grammar/spelling, I'm not a native english speaker).

It would seem the original poster wanted to tackle the question of fortification so that classes with low AC would risk getting critically hit, thus making tanking undesirable for them, relative to the changes in the intimidate skill, as those tanks with lower AC but higher DPS would more easily sustain aggro.

Why don't you people look at it in another entirely different way as I'll explain ?

- The point is to make high AC / shield-bearing / turtle-defenders desirable.
- 1st problem, with the changes to intimidate, those will generate less hate.
- Possible solution => Make it so shield bash (as well as improved shield bash wich WILL proc sometimes on its own) generate a LOT of hate, possibly scaling with the size & enhancement bonus of the shield (small / heavy / tower => 100% / 150% / 200%, that's just a thought).
- Likewise, some shield (epic ?) might reinforce this by having a magic attribute akin to caster-gear damage %, but with hate, and along the same line said classes (fighter / paladin spring to mind) could if they so wish buy enhancements to further increase hate generation with shield.

- The same way, if someone not from those classes / enhancements / etc.. wanted to equip a shield to boost his hate some more (say for a standard 19-20 quest and you don't have a tank handy, or for fun) they could do so, but would have to actively bash to benefit from it.

Edit : - Oh and by the way, you could also make it so that the higher AC you have, the more hate you can generate, but there would have to be some sort of toggle or prerequisite enhancement / class, since AC isn't "always" tied up with actually wanting to tank (monks and some high AC melee dps builds spring to mind).

Anyway, I thought I'd give my opinion as it would be a "boost" and would not be a "nerf" to anyone.

PS : And yeah I'm both a game designer (by formation, not currently employed in the industry unfortunately) and a pen and paper RPG player :P

[morticianjohn]

I'm saddened by the blatant ignorance on some posts here about the OP's topic content. You say that you don't want it changed; that's not what the OP is talking about. Instead, suggest alternative changes instead of debating the obvious "'weakened' characters vs fun in the game" which is what some of you are currently doing. The OP posted an idea, debate the idea rather than the effect on you specifically it will have (there are over a million others who play this game; you are NOT the only one!) and if you don't like it, come up with a better reason other than "because it will 'gimp' my character and make the game harder" because that response shows me that you don't care about the game, you just want your pixels and won't stop at anything to keep others from making it harder for you to get your pixels. Sad.

Now, there have been several ideas already posted; I had one on the second post of Page 2, I saw another idea on page 2 or 3, and so far nobody has made a decent comment on any of them. In fact the only comments made were about the other idea; that comment was "No, *insert words of your choice that mean i am scared about gimping my toon* and your idea is stupid/dumb/idiotic/*insert insulting adjetive here* so shut up" (put in a slightly humorous context) and not necessary.

INSTEAD... Debate the ideas without relying on petty insults. Please. I would have negative repped some of you personally and told you I did because of some of the comments; this is directed at those on both sides before anyone says that I favor one over the other. But as the rep system is borked I can't. That's for a different thread though.

90% of the suggested changes already have their own threads and the other 10% will have a thread in a week.

Everyone thinks they've got the solution that can solve the AC problem.

At first I jumped on board with some of these suggested changes however, at the moment having read through sooooo many suggestions I am really liking the current system. In the current system high AC toons are still viable they just require a lot more grinding. It makes them feel elite when they've sucessfully rolled and geard a high AC intimi tank and everyone is inviting them to join their raids eDQ, HoX, ToD, VoD etc...

Plus under the current system the grind isn't required because if you don't have the gear you can just roll a threat tank.

The one thing that concerns me is the intim changes. If a sword and board can't hold aggro then we may see some AC toons with their roles narrowed down to HoX, and ToD (jailer & sully situations).... still it's too early to say much about that. I personally don't think it's going to affect the high AC toons that are on my friends list since if I'm understanding the changes they're good enough in the DPS department to hold aggro under the new intim rules.

[donfilibuster]

Problem is that asking devs to change AC to something else isn't quite better than asking devs to make AC usable as intended in the original way.

If direct damage got a pass for u9 i can't see why armor can't get a pass for u11.
And besides reducing bloated to-hit from monsters, just having more AC options would help wonders.
(such as spells, enhancements, maybe some feat, etc. some of which are in d&d already)

[Emili]

That's a good point about casters... but maybe that just means they need to be even more careful about getting too much aggro.

Quite possibly AC needs to be capped instead of rising beyond 80+? If AC had a cap it would be meaningful again... the mob to-hit adjusted down, the tank AC adjusted down and the to-hit/damage output of a mob within scope for all characters. It is only when you may take each pure class figure out scope of reasonable AC and gear at half way mark can you come up with an actual range of possible values for such on a D20.

Way back when - the desert was new - I remember a scorc with an AC of 39 ... and elf in twilight leather who placed all into ac at the time. I remember also his casting powers pretty much sucked donkey arse.