Another possible AC-based DR idea

[grodon9999]

? Why do you say that? What build are we talking about? Evasion Splashes have decent DPS potential on average.

Aesop

but less than pures that are losing capstone, that's where the tradeoff lies. offense, not defense.

[Aesop]

but less than pures that are losing capstone, that's where the tradeoff lies. offense, not defense.

I'm not sure that is entirely true. Rather, it may be for certain builds but not for others.

regardless something along those lines (ie the mitigation) would be reasonable? (Even without the factoring in additional Heavy Benefits)

[grodon9999]

I'm not sure that is entirely true. Rather, it may be for certain builds but not for others.

It is true. Fighters, pallies, barbs all lose significant DPS losing their capstones. Rogues are situational DPS (requiring not having aggro, fortification, etc . . .) and monks/rangers are behind anyway.

The trade-off for evasion IS lower DPS.

regardless something along those lines (ie the mitigation) would be reasonable? (Even without the factoring in additional Heavy Benefits)

No, none of it is reasonable at all. i think all % base damage mitigation is garbage and shouldn't be in the game at all. But if it is in the game it should be based on armor bonus and not armor type.

[Battlehawke]

Sometimes DPS is about survivability. If a toon is constantly dying or dead his/her DPS is very minimal, not to mention the strain on the healer to keep him it alive and the casters to rebuff.

The DPS of a dead toon is Zero even if his/her Str is 100!

So ultimately and in special situations Evasion can improve DPS, especially on moderate HP toons...

[voodoogroves]

No, none of it is reasonable at all. i think all % base damage mitigation is garbage and shouldn't be in the game at all. But if it is in the game it should be based on armor bonus and not armor type.

I'm kinda ok with it being in the game - but not at the expense of AC.

PNP D&D has AC and DR. There are a few "reduction" kind of mechanics, but they are rare. PNP also has touch AC and initiative, both of which have been replaced in DDO with player twitch mechanics (meaning at least for this aspect the character you build is NOT quicker, smarter, stronger, etc. than yourself - it is your skill replacing a D&D mechanic).

DDO has DR ... but non-functioning AC. In addition, it adds more "reduction" mechanics. AC though ... AC and the d20 mechanic is absofreakinglutely CORE. I'm all for being creative and adding new things to the mix ... but it has to be a MIX.

I should be able to build for AC and achieve something meaningful on a first character. If I can't have a meaningful AC as I level up if I make that my sole focus (pjs or armor) then something is wrong.



One of the bigger problems with class balance is really some of those role-targets. If I want to be an AC tank, I can't come to the game and decide I even want to cap and be able to handle normal stuff easily. A sorc can probably muddle through and be effective on their own merits, the melee DPS can too as it's on a different curve/path but one that continually reaches for moar DPS ... there's a reason you can PUG out melee spots in any old VOD. A tank though, not likely to cap and have gear enough to realistically tank.



One option that does work quickly is the "avoidance" route. A monk split (w/ fade and earth stance) is going to achieve (in general) better damage mitigation and healing amp out of the box than a fighter or pally straight build going for an AC (or heaven forbid, S&B even) tank. Those guys have an unbelievably long road ... and honestly, I'm staring at a guy I just TR'd and wondering if I'm just going to park him because the grind looks mind-numbing.

[Battlehawke]

Ultimately I think it would be great if they made AC about your ability to avoid/absorb a hit and Armor type about the armors ability to absorb/resist a blow.

It just makes sense. I.e. It's harder to hit the monk doing summersaults and flips than it is to hit the guy in the 200# suit of steel who can barely move. However assuming both are trained in combat, when you hit the guy with no armor on, its probably going to hurt a tad more....

[grodon9999]

Ultimately I think it would be great if they made AC about your ability to avoid/absorb a hit and Armor type about the armors ability to absorb/resist a blow.

It just makes sense. I.e. It's harder to hit the monk doing summersaults and flips than it is to hit the guy in the 200# suit of steel who can barely move. However assuming both are trained in combat, when you hit the guy with no armor on, its probably going to hurt a tad more....

The guy with "no armor" is wearing bracers that surround his body with a forcefield. He is getting the effects of an "armor" bonus to his AC, same as the guy wearing plate-mail.

No 'type' of bonus should be superior to any other type of bonus.

What about the natural bonus?

Deflection?

Under your logic they should be included as well in this "absorbtion" silliness.

Or here's a crazy idea . . . have AC actually be used to avoid hit like it does in D&D. All this other "MMO" stuff is just silly and should be kept out of the game.

Again . .. in D&D a "hit" doesn't mean "made contact" with a target . . . a hit means "hit and penetrated" the armor. All armor has weak spots, if you're wearing plate and got hit you were hit in a weak spot.

[Battlehawke]

Junk, while you make some valid points, unfortunately this game departed from AD&D some time ago. I hope the Devs do real it back in.... and correcet me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there a subset of rules in the 2nd Ed P&P that gave DR to Armor?

Oh, and I always envisioned magical bracers as magically being directed to defend against a blow (directing your hands/arms), not a force field.

However I always envisioned a Protection item. As a protective field.... but to each his own..

[grodon9999]

Junk, while you make some valid points, unfortunately this game departed from AD&D some time ago. I hope the Devs do real it back in.... and correcet me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there a subset of rules in the 2nd Ed P&P that gave DR to Armor?

it's not as far departed as people think, that's really just a cop-out that gives the devs an excuse to not change things. AC only doesn't work in epics and that change is as simple as lowering the mob/boss to-hits.

I believe there were some optional rules for armor DR, but so what they were "optional" and they included the "+" of an armor in them which is much closer to what I'm suggesting (% mitigation based on armor BONUS) than mitigation simply based on armor type.

It just drives me nuts that with this Shield Mastery silliness a friggin Wooden Tower shield gives more damage mitigation than an Epic Kundarak Warding shield. Basing something like this on something so arbitrary like shield type is poor game design.

[Battlehawke]

Junk,

I hear ya! I agree the current system doesn't work the way it should. And I'm not sugessting a right or wrong way to fix it, just another way. To me it doesn't sense that a Ftr. Who has trained his whole life for combat while wearing a full suit of Armor and Tower Shield should be so less effective than a toon wearing robes and a couple bracers on his wrists. There has got to be some balance. The Shield mitigation was a step in the right direction, but still has a lot to be desired. The system IS broken.

..don't make me unsquelch you!

[grodon9999]

Junk,

I hear ya! I agree the current system doesn't work the way it should. And I'm not sugessting a right or wrong way to fix it, just another way. To me it doesn't sense that a Ftr. Who has trained his whole life for combat while wearing a full suit of Armor and Tower Shield should be so less effective than a toon wearing robes and a couple bracers on his wrists. There has got to be some balance. The Shield mitigation was a step in the right direction, but still has a lot to be desired. The system IS broken.

..don't make me unsquelch you!

No, it was NOT. it gave more advantages to casters than it gave to melees. Divorcing defense from AC was a HORRIBLE direction for the game.

The system is only broken in epics. AC works everywhere else if you build for it. if you don't you don't have a right to complain about getting hit.

[voodoogroves]

No, it was NOT. it gave more advantages to casters than it gave to melees. Divorcing defense from AC was a HORRIBLE direction for the game.

The system is only broken in epics. AC works everywhere else if you build for it. if you don't you don't have a right to complain about getting hit.

You know what I'd kinda like? If the Shield Mastery/Earth Stance stuff is going to stay in some form (again, that is a base assumption here) ... Short version ....


- Give the trash mobs in epic some sort of variable reduction in their base attack bonus so AC matters. AC is a core d20 mechanic of D&D and it should matter.

- Replace the defender stance HP bonus with a damage decreasing % (like shield mastery and earth stance) that scales by tier; let's make this consistent

- Change Shield Mastery/Improved from being as front-loaded as it is now. Make first first feat 5/10/15; Make improved increase that by 10%. Should only work if you're proficient with the shield in question (and not back-dooring tower shields)

- Add an Armor Mastery/Improved feat that does the same ... only with light/medium/heavy. People who want to build for damage absorption instead of AC could.

- Stop the weird scaling on DR. One annoying thing about building for DR or putting on that DOD (which rocks) is that the engine is scaling damage and you're still getting tagged sometimes.


This allows you to build for specific functions. Absorption? DR? AC?

[bloodnose13]

maybe it should be rather based on material of armor or its general type rather than on light/med/heavy. for example someone useing a mithral fullplate would feel bit cheated out of benefits of heavy armor as mithral is medium.

idea by itself is great though.

oh and no more extra feats to take, sorry but this would kill all pally tanks as they are streched thin on feats as it is, it either would ahve to be based on free feats that are given to everyone or idk, but more feats is not the way to go

[Targonis]

The fundamental issue is that D&D does not really discriminate between to-hit and to do damage, except for the whole DR idea. If you think about it, to-hit should indicate if you got hit, without the need to break through armor, shields, or anything else. You swing a sword and don't make a mistake, the target doesn't get out of the way, and your sword blow hits the target. Higher dexterity would allow someone to dodge the attack, armor itself would hinder the ability of the target to move easily, and a shield and even using your weapon, you can also deflect an attack to prevent it from "landing".

Now, once the attack actually hits, the armor itself, magic defense, etc would kick in to reduce how much actual damage is done, but these things would not affect if the attack hits or not.

So, I like the idea of to hit, and "to do damage". In such a system, the more of a difference there is between the needed to-hit and what you roll is where the damage done should come from. If you need a 15 to hit, and you get 15-17, you should really do MINIMAL damage, you barely hit your target. If you need a 15 and get a 20, then obviously you should do more damage since it was a more solid hit. If you only need a 3 to hit and get a 15, you will do quite a bit more damage.

All of this would solve the problem since a higher AC will ALWAYS play a factor in reducing how much damage is done(because it is the difference between what is needed to hit and what the attacker rolled). A 50 to 55AC then wouldn't be that huge of a difference, but a 30 to a 55 would be. A system like this could also eliminate the whole "20 is an automatic hit" if you need a modified 35 to hit, and critical hits would be a function of a 20+ difference between needed to-hit and what is actually rolled.

[voodoogroves]

The fundamental issue is that D&D does not really discriminate between to-hit and to do damage, except for the whole DR idea. If you think about it, to-hit should indicate if you got hit, without the need to break through armor, shields, or anything else. You swing a sword and don't make a mistake, the target doesn't get out of the way, and your sword blow hits the target. Higher dexterity would allow someone to dodge the attack, armor itself would hinder the ability of the target to move easily, and a shield and even using your weapon, you can also deflect an attack to prevent it from "landing".

Now, once the attack actually hits, the armor itself, magic defense, etc would kick in to reduce how much actual damage is done, but these things would not affect if the attack hits or not.

So, I like the idea of to hit, and "to do damage". In such a system, the more of a difference there is between the needed to-hit and what you roll is where the damage done should come from. If you need a 15 to hit, and you get 15-17, you should really do MINIMAL damage, you barely hit your target. If you need a 15 and get a 20, then obviously you should do more damage since it was a more solid hit. If you only need a 3 to hit and get a 15, you will do quite a bit more damage.

All of this would solve the problem since a higher AC will ALWAYS play a factor in reducing how much damage is done(because it is the difference between what is needed to hit and what the attacker rolled). A 50 to 55AC then wouldn't be that huge of a difference, but a 30 to a 55 would be. A system like this could also eliminate the whole "20 is an automatic hit" if you need a modified 35 to hit, and critical hits would be a function of a 20+ difference between needed to-hit and what is actually rolled.

D&D completely does cover this; this is the difference between Touch AC and normal AC.

Rays, warlock blasts, etc. require only a ranged touch attack to hit. Inflict spells or spells that you only need to touch the target, target touch AC.

Touch AC does not include armor, shield or natural armor bonuses.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/com...htm#armorClass

[grodon9999]

The fundamental issue is that D&D does not really discriminate between to-hit and to do damage, except for the whole DR idea. If you think about it, to-hit should indicate if you got hit, without the need to break through armor, shields, or anything else. You swing a sword and don't make a mistake, the target doesn't get out of the way, and your sword blow hits the target. Higher dexterity would allow someone to dodge the attack, armor itself would hinder the ability of the target to move easily, and a shield and even using your weapon, you can also deflect an attack to prevent it from "landing".

Now, once the attack actually hits, the armor itself, magic defense, etc would kick in to reduce how much actual damage is done, but these things would not affect if the attack hits or not.

So, I like the idea of to hit, and "to do damage". In such a system, the more of a difference there is between the needed to-hit and what you roll is where the damage done should come from. If you need a 15 to hit, and you get 15-17, you should really do MINIMAL damage, you barely hit your target. If you need a 15 and get a 20, then obviously you should do more damage since it was a more solid hit. If you only need a 3 to hit and get a 15, you will do quite a bit more damage.

All of this would solve the problem since a higher AC will ALWAYS play a factor in reducing how much damage is done(because it is the difference between what is needed to hit and what the attacker rolled). A 50 to 55AC then wouldn't be that huge of a difference, but a 30 to a 55 would be. A system like this could also eliminate the whole "20 is an automatic hit" if you need a modified 35 to hit, and critical hits would be a function of a 20+ difference between needed to-hit and what is actually rolled.

No

[grodon9999]

D&D completely does cover this; this is the difference between Touch AC and normal AC.

Rays, warlock blasts, etc. require only a ranged touch attack to hit. Inflict spells or spells that you only need to touch the target, target touch AC.

Touch AC does not include armor, shield or natural armor bonuses.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/com...htm#armorClass

Yes

[Aesop]

Well what about an overall Mitigation.

AC still does its avoidance thing but it would also apply a degree of Mitigation.


maybe for every 5 AC you gain 1% mitigation (ie .2% per AC) or maybe .25% per 1AC

This way even if the Devs want people getting hit more (read all the dang time) there is still incentive for high AC builds in that content.

Personally I'd trade out Shield Mastery and Improved Shield Mastery (as I think they are made up Feats) and replace them with the Shield Feats (or a variation of them) from Players Handbook 2. Maybe add in the Armor Spec Feat as well for kicks.

Make the work with specific types of Armor and Shields (Full Plate, Tower Shield, Chain Shirt etc as appropriate)

Shield Specialization: Let this improve the Shield AC, Bash chance and Mitigation

Armor Specialization: Let this improve Max Dex, Armor Check Penalty, and Mitigation.

In the book Armor Spec only applies to Medium or Heavy Armor... (though I imagine the Mithril Versions of those would still benefit despite being a different category)

Rework Earth Stance to have a bonus to Mitigation but perhaps not as high of a bonus. perhaps cap the bonus at 10%.

This should yield a reasonable benefit for AC characters despite circumstances that ignore the avoidance part of AC.

Aesop

[Battlehawke]

Targonis, very valid points. +1
There are so many different ways to look at this. The mechanics of combat are so vast, I guess the Devs have to draw the line somewhere.
I personally think with the shield mitigation, they made a step in the right direction. AC should be about hitting/missing. DR/Mitigation should be about whats between you and the weapon coming at you. The heavier/resistant the armor, or the more training of the warrior = the less damage he/she should take.
Unfortunately the Devs have to pick between all of our ideas and their own and come up with a solution that they think will work.
Voodoo, this touch AC is not currently applied in DDO, is it?

[Vanquishedfo]

Ill just keep saying it. If you want a pnp D20 mechanic that keeps to the old ideals of AC while still having some semblance of armor actually doing its job and absorbing dmg, then look for a copy of the Conan D20 book that came out during all the 3E OGL D20 stuff. It was a fantastic book just to look at and read through for any gamer collector. But it also had some really great revamps for the D20 rules that remain the core of DDO here.

For starters it changed AC to Defense and gave two options for how to imagine it working, one a dodge basis using dex, or a parry option where you used your str for your def bonus.

It changed Armor by making each set give actual Damage absorbtion based on the 3 types of physical dmg to varying degrees. It gave weapons penetration values, making slender weapons like rapiers much more effective against chain mail then a great sword. Meanwhile a great sword was awesome for tearing through a guy in heavy plate.

Natural Armor would in this system apply DR while protection bonuses and the like would be more along the lines of magical deflection. Bracers of armor would be among the BEST forms of armor simply because they would act as actual armor but lack any sub type weaknesses found in actual armors.

Weapon FInesse funtions much differently, It allows one to COMPLETELY by pass the DR of physical armors if you roll a to hit exceeding the number needed to hit by a certain amount, typically by about the value of AC granted in our current system.

These rules from a DMs perspective worked really well to create a much more balanced non magical warrior and rogue type campaign. I personally had little trouble getting my local gamer groups to adopt the system for all D20 based games ever after just because they really are what alot of us old gamers and DDOs here frequently ask for, a better distinction between avoiding blows, and how our protective gear helps us when we do get hit.

A simpel example of where the conan D20 really shines imo is this scenerio I have seen play out no few times in low lvl adventures at my table tops.

Bandit archers ambush the player group. the monk and the paladin both charge the nearest ones. The monk manages to deflect the first arrow but a 2nd then a third strike and lacking any armor they each roll for dmg with no reduction.

The paladin moves abit slower, but as arrows fly at him his shield helps him parry the first, then 2nd, arrows 3-5 strike, but thanks to his full plate, only one arrow manages to bite through the heavy steel and deals only a minor 3 points of dmg.

Meanwhile the monk is in a pretty rough bit of shape having suffered 15 points of dmg in that first volley and now being faster is surrounded by bandits who are looking suddenly alot more dangerous now that your HP is barely above incap.

I have little doubt that is what some here are kind of wanting to see happen with physical armor, and it isnt a bad thing to see. But would have to come with multiple other rule changes or become likely more problem then help.