Fortification

[wonkey]

I like it.

And to those complaining that robe wearers without shields will get hit harder, well yeah. Expect that to happen sometime, in some form, anyway. People complaining that armors and shields are worthless has been going on for some time. Either they'll get a buff in AC, dps, like the new shield bash thing, DR, or something like this, or some combo.

And, it wouldn't be a nerf to healers. Not really. Making the game a bit harder in general isn't nerfing the healers any more than changing everyone's dps would be a nerf for bards and other buffers. People will have to play a bit smarter to allow their healers to do their thing, and, to me, that's a good thing.

[Spoonman457]

I have not seen any mention from the devs about any changes to fort, could you provide a quote where they indicate this?

If no one has seen the devs say this then I cry foul on the OP, on trying to pass off a bad suggestion to change the way fort is used as a response/opinion to a dev raised issue.

Since there is no planed change to fort (as far as I know), and different sources of fort do stack ie. WF racial fort stacks with item fort this would be a bad idea, as it would lead to only fighters and barbs having good enough fort for epics/raids without giving up necessary items, (like choosing 50%+ fort or a +6 int item on a wizard, and forget about any non weapon GS item, you wont have the slots for them)

Totally a bad idea

/not signed

ps. U9 was the spell pass, and it has been suggested by the devs that U10 is the ranged combat pass, so when were they talking about an AC/Fort pass?

[donfilibuster]

Another tought regarding armor and crits is that armor is full of holes, figuratively speaking, when it comes to seams, exposed flesh and weak points in general.
(that a rogue can exploit for example, or just the unlucky crit roll striking a vital area)

But armor and weapons were designed to fight each other, so can use that to provide fort where otherwise there's no special protection.
In 2e there was a breakdown of armor vs. weapons that allowed mail to be strong vs. pierce or plate to defend vs. slash, etc.
In 3e it was dropped as the system was simplified and the focus of the combat rules began to shift from warrior vs. warrior to hero vs. big bulky monsters.

One idea to make armor have fort is to have something similar.
Armor could give the fortification bonuses to certain damage types because the various armor types indeed are designed to defend from those.
So the OP idea could be made so that plate gives fort vs slash, mail vs pierce and padded or banded vs. bludgeon, etc.
Mithril plate would still count as heavy in this regard, as the light metal doesn't make it any weaker.

[grodon9999]

Regarding a fort/AC pass . . . which I suspect is on the horizon . . . I'd much rather see something like this than a total nerf of monk-splash. This makes logical sense and gives each type of defense some kind of flavor.

[wonkey]

I assume plate would defend against pierce AND slash, right?

Also, I would reverse those. I think chain was better vs slash then pierce. Piercing could find the chinks in the chain, and or, push through a link, with enough force. Ex. I think it's been suggested that Bodkin arrows were specifically made to punch through chain. And while a rapier MIGHT be able to penetrate chain sometimes, it would be pretty useless against plate, which is why it only became popular once pistols made wearing plate armor, more or less, obsolete.

[Razcar]

If they change Fortification along these lines I hope they lower the mob damage some, since squishy classes will get squishier and the healing classes are going to get to foot the bill. Well, squishy classes will get discriminated (more) as well. They have less HP and now they should also be critted more easily.

[Scraap]

I have not seen any mention from the devs about any changes to fort, could you provide a quote where they indicate this?

http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php...59#post3686259 for the most recent indication that the bat is turning in that direction.

[Razcar]

I have not seen any mention from the devs about any changes to fort, could you provide a quote where they indicate this?

Search posts from Eladrin from 2010.

[Gnorbert]

I like it as well. Getting 100% fort to be immune from crits should be more complicated than slipping on a hat or some other piece of clothing.

This is an interesting system that looks like it would be fun in the designing and gearing of a character towards a specific role. If it provides fun in character building, then it will be a success.

[NaturalHazard]

If they change Fortification along these lines I hope they lower the mob damage some, since squishy classes will get squishier and the healing classes are going to get to foot the bill. Well, squishy classes will get discriminated (more) as well. They have less HP and now they should also be critted more easily.

This was a concern for me, if your going to be wearing light armour or cloth you gotta have a lot of hp to soak up the spike damage, just seems to be that the melee classes that wear cloth and light armour also get less hp than those classes that wear medium and heavy armour............ just saying.

[wonkey]

If they change Fortification along these lines I hope they lower the mob damage some, since squishy classes will get squishier and the healing classes are going to get to foot the bill. Well, squishy classes will get discriminated (more) as well. They have less HP and now they should also be critted more easily.

Let's remember that the OP's system allows everyone 100% fort, based off a heavy item and 4 enhancements alone. Other methods are available that let you reduce AP expenditure and/or the need for an item, but that's all about how you build your character, which is great imo

[Inkblack]

I do want to emphasize that debuffs would allow critical hits on players with 100% fort. If you want to be truly immune, you would have to stack higher than 100%.

[NaturalHazard]

hmmm picks would be the ultimate weapon for mobs?

ding goes the rogue

[BOgre]

Changes to the fort system? maybe a good thing, maybe not.

I would only want to see it, though, if changes are made to AC so it becomes relevant beyond GH.


_

^this

Since my chosen class will have useless armor very soon, fort seems to be my only protection whatsoever. Are you saying I need to give up my speed and mobility too now?

[grodon9999]

hmmm picks would be the ultimate weapon for mobs?

ding goes the rogue

Only if he builds his toon to be zero-defense.

Choices in a game are a good thing. Right now that choices in slotting items is for DPS or DPS, defense being viable, necessary even, is a good thing in the de-stupiding of the DDO end-game.

[grodon9999]

^this

Since my chosen class will have useless armor very soon, fort seems to be my only protection whatsoever. Are you saying I need to give up my speed and mobility too now?

The viability of AC would have to go hand in hand with a fortification change such as what the OP is proposing. The easiest and best way to do this is expanding the range of viable AC from a 20 point range to a 40 point range. See http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php...ghlight=simple

[RobertVesco]

This is all based on this post?

Sure. "Read by a dev."

Interesting thread.

(I actually played around with something like this a little while back on my personal server, where AC gave fort% on a 1:1 basis and attackers decreased your fort% by the their to-hit. Basically, excess attack bonus functioned as fort-bypass. It felt a bit too punitive with our current monster statting trends, but was interesting to experiment with.)

[Infant]

Only if he builds his toon to be zero-defense.

Choices in a game are a good thing. Right now that choices in slotting items is for DPS or DPS, defense being viable, necessary even, is a good thing in the de-stupiding of the DDO end-game.

Defensive gear on 90% of the toons right now is False Life, + Con and Fort Item, as far as I understand. Everything else is slotted towards offense. Some more decisions/choices might be good.

As many have stated, the proposed system can turn out against rogues, monks and casters. Especially rogues with their low HP could be one-shotted by triple damage.

Infant

[donfilibuster]

I assume plate would defend against pierce AND slash, right?

Also, I would reverse those. I think chain was better vs slash then pierce. Piercing could find the chinks in the chain, and or, push through a link, with enough force. Ex. I think it's been suggested that Bodkin arrows were specifically made to punch through chain. And while a rapier MIGHT be able to penetrate chain sometimes, it would be pretty useless against plate, which is why it only became popular once pistols made wearing plate armor, more or less, obsolete.

Ok, had to look it up the old book, so yeah had it reversed.
Full plate was indeed strong vs both slash and pierce as it was full, but non-full plate were only vs slash.

Most other armor offered a little protection vs pierce, a larger protection vs slash and no protection vs bludgeon.
Banded and split were strong vs. bludgeon. Chain mail was vulnerable to bludgeon and hide/leather/padding vulnerable to pierce.
This made studded leather somewhat desirable vs chain mail but otherwise the progression remains as expected.

What it does is effectively allowing armor a buff to AC hence worth a shot comparing it to the fortification idea.
Is also worth mention this was an optional rule.

[grodon9999]

As many have stated, the proposed system can turn out against rogues, monks and casters. Especially rogues with their low HP could be one-shotted by triple damage.

Infant

Glass-cannon's shatter. It's a balancing mechanism.

People complain about this game being too easy, throwing in a little chaos with some spike-damage makes things less routine. Controlling aggro becomes more important, on part of both the tank and the flankers.