Flattening & Simplifying Defences

[Kzach]

Why is there more than one type of defence? When you think about it, really, it's doubling up. You already get a benefit from Dexterity in your Armour Class. Constitution gives you hit points. Charisma makes you pretty (ok, Wisdom and Charisma are pretty useless for this example but in the system I'm proposing, this would be irrelevant).

So, why have Fortitude, Reflex or Will?

Instead, why not just nuke the entire system from orbit and simply say every attack that targets the physical body of the person, is against Armour Class? This would eliminate the problem of balancing spell attacks against a separate system and it would eliminate the disparity between defences at higher levels.

In such a system, you would need to use some sort of 'Mental Resistance' mechanic for attacks that targeted the mind. Just say they automatically 'hit', but the target can fully or partially resist the effect if they roll successfully (or if the attacker rolls high enough, whatever mechanic you prefer). The creation of this system might be best left for another thread though. My intention here is to simply argue the merits of eliminating the Fort/Ref/Will defences.

 

[SparqMan]

In 4E, I assumed that most physical attacks (depending on their description) hit, and AC is a manifestation of your ability to either handle it or take damage. The DEX in AC (w/o armor) is your ability to roll with the punches.

REF is necessary to cover a volley of arrows. Can you dodge them?

Without FORT, how would you handle poisons? That's certainly not an element of armor.

And your "mental resistance" sounds like WILL.

 

[Kzach]

REF is necessary to cover a volley of arrows. Can you dodge them?

Handled by AC... err... kinda a no-brainer there, this is doubling-up at it's most obvious.

Without FORT, how would you handle poisons? That's certainly not an element of armor.

Again, handled by AC. It is most certainly an element of armor as to whether or not the poisoned weapon attack hits. If it hits, then you're poisoned. Adding in the complexity of a second 'attack' is convoluted, unnecessary, and bordering on ridiculous. How do you 'miss' with a poison? Severity of the poison is handled by the damage roll.

And your "mental resistance" sounds like WILL.

No because it would assume all mental attacks hit automatically and therefore resistance is get rid of the effects of the attack.

 

[AeroDm]

In such a system, you would need to use some sort of 'Mental Resistance' mechanic for attacks that targeted the mind. Just say they automatically 'hit', but the target can fully or partially resist the effect if they roll successfully (or if the attacker rolls high enough, whatever mechanic you prefer). The creation of this system might be best left for another thread though. My intention here is to simply argue the merits of eliminating the Fort/Ref/Will defences.

I think that is what they did, you are just interpreting it differently. Mental attacks "hit" and we see if they are effective based on Will. Other things, like frigid cold, also "hit" and we see if you can endure them with Fortitude. Most things, however, are resolved by Reflex or its derivative AC. Once the system was in place, the designers sought to better balance the three defenses by helping more attacks target each defense.

 

[john112364]

I could see rolling reflex into AC, but I think fortitude and will still have a use. Reflex is definitely redundant.

 

[ravenheart]

I'd rather remove AC in favor of some sort of damage reduction mechanism (or resist all) than Reflex.

If I was going all out I'd remove all defenses and just use opposed ability score checks (e.g. Int vs. Str, brains vs. brawns), or using a more comprehensive ability score/skill system revamp to determine attack and defense stats. Hell, I'd might as well remove ability scores from attacks and defenses all together and go with level-based modifiers! ANARCHY!

Phew, better simmer down before i tear my PHB a new one. Too much caffeine!

 

[Firebird]

while I can see both sides of the argument, there are instances when AC would not be applicable.

A character ingests something poisonous, for just one example. It's hard to figure how AC would apply, hence the need for some sort of "physical toughness" score. Not all poisons are delivered by envenomed weapons.

Similarly, disease. A character wading through a city sewer on the hunt for the wererat that ate his cheese is already up to his or her waist in filth. It has already "hit." Fortitude to the rescue here as well.

Your point about Dexterity already adding to AC is true, but not for characters in heavier armor. I can see a tank in heavy armor rolling with the impacts of an ogre's club but not my rogue in leather.

In picturing that scene you saw him dodging out of the way too didn't you?

 

[Kzach]

A character ingests something poisonous, for just one example. It's hard to figure how AC would apply, hence the need for some sort of "physical toughness" score. Not all poisons are delivered by envenomed weapons.

A character who has ingested a poison doesn't get a chance to resist it. The only question is whether or not he can survive it, and that is taken care of by hit points.

Similarly, disease. A character wading through a city sewer on the hunt for the wererat that ate his cheese is already up to his or her waist in filth. It has already "hit." Fortitude to the rescue here as well.

Why Fortitude? You've got a perfectly good stat in Constitution for determining whether a person contracts a disease or not. And again, hit points can determine whether or not they survive it.

Your point about Dexterity already adding to AC is true, but not for characters in heavier armor. I can see a tank in heavy armor rolling with the impacts of an ogre's club but not my rogue in leather.

In picturing that scene you saw him dodging out of the way too didn't you?

Err... I don't see any actual point in your statements.

 

[the Jester]

I don't see any gain for doing this. Are you attempting to address a problem you have detected, or are you just tinkering? Is it just kind of an aesthetic thing?

 

[Kzach]

I don't see any gain for doing this. Are you attempting to address a problem you have detected, or are you just tinkering? Is it just kind of an aesthetic thing?

There are two gains, mainly.

The first is in simplification and eliminating redundancy. When something serves a purpose just as well served by something else already in place, then why have both when one will suffice?

The second is in flattening the expected ranges of defences. Currently there exists many problems with uneven defences. Multiple feat taxes are in place to rebalance these flaws. The problem isn't noticeable until paragon but it gets a bit silly by epic.