D&D simplified: Do you really need Touch AC's?

[Grayhawk]

For my ongoing project of simplifying the D&D 3.x rules, I've come to AC's.

Is the touch AC really needed?

For special combat moves like Grapple and Trip, I plan to just use opposed attack rolls so I don't think I'll need touch AC's here.

For spells, I can easily envision how armor and shields can protect against many effects from touch spells. Hit by a Melf's Acid Arrow while wearing a platemail? The acid splashes off your armor and fail to affect you. Likewise, a Scorching Ray may be deflected by your shield, etc.

Obviously, such a change would make it harder for spellcasters to hit with their touch spells, so to balance it out I was thinking of making those spells use the caster's magical prowess opposed to his martial prowess when determining hit chance.

The idea is to let the caster make a caster-level check when a spell requires an attack roll. So a 3rd level Wizard casting a Melf's Acid Arrow gets an attack roll with a +3 bonus.

If that isn't good enough for hitting the full AC of equally powered opponents, consider either adding his Int bonus to all such rolls, or - if you prefer to make such attacks more physical - his Dex bonus.

With such a rule, the Wizard is just as likely to hit his enemies with a Ray of Frost as the Fighter is with his longbow, but is that a bad thing? He propably have fewer spells than the fighter has arrows, and he'll never gain additional attacks due to high BAB.

The questions:

1: Are there situations where you think touch AC's are really needed?

2: If spellcasters get to use their level as a bonus on attack rolls with spells (against their opponents full AC), have a good balance been struck?

3: If not, how would you go about it? (Maybe adjusting the attack roll with Dex or Int bonus?)

 

[Milkman Dan]

As a cleric, the majority of touch spells I use to attack opponents are things like inflict critical wound, slay living, or even cure critical wounds against undead opponents I can't turn. I don't see how armor would help against these spells.

 

[Aust Diamondew]

While it's not needed it's not paticuarly hard to use and make more sense in many cases (such as inflict critical wounds and many other spells). The rules suggestions you just came up with to make up for the increased armor against touch spells are nearly/just as "bad".
Now instead of the defender remembering not to calculate in his shield and armor the caster has to remember to add his caster level to the attack roll.

 

[Darren]

Keep touch AC. It's really not that complicated, and trying to remove it introduces other complications and balance issues.

Example: Natural armor. Does it make sense that thick, tough hide helps protect a creature from swords and arrows? Yes. Does it make sense to help it keep from being touched? Not really.

Another example: Beholders. Scary. But not if you take away their ranged touch attack. Their ranged touch attack is 9 + d20. So, by what you are suggesting, any armor class higher than 28 would require a natural 20 for the beholder to hit with an eye ray. A third level fighter can have an AC that high easy. Even a dexterous third level wizard can be buffed that high. So what if you give the beholder a caster level check? For the beholder in the monster manual, that's 13 (caster level) + d20, or a maximum of 33. It's not at all hard to get an AC that high by the time one normally runs into beholders. Should the disintegrate ray really bounce off a character so easily? I don't think so.

Leave touch AC. It's simpler than taking it out.

 

[SSquirrel]

At the early levels giving a caster level bonus means squat. Yeah great, my first level wizard has several less effectivespells now. Fabulous. When they're 20th level characters, it's just adding to a large level of power. Heck, given how high the bonuses can get from armor, you would really just need to make it a flat +10 to hit instead to make it actually useful as a replacement.

Touch attacks are just dandy *grin*

Hagen

 

[Thanee]

Especially, when it comes down to adding other rules to compensate for the lack of touch attacks, it seems perfectly clear, that there is no point in removing them in the first place.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Grayhawk]

As a cleric, the majority of touch spells I use to attack opponents are things like inflict critical wound, slay living, or even cure critical wounds against undead opponents I can't turn. I don't see how armor would help against these spells.

I can certainly understand where you're comming from, but I feel that the opposite point could just as easily be made: Why wouldn't it be harder to hit someone in a full platemail and a large shield with your Inflict Critical Wounds, opposed to the naked guy beside him?

Remember that earlier editions got by just fine without a touch AC, so you just have to envision these situations like you did before.

Example: Natural armor. Does it make sense that thick, tough hide helps protect a creature from swords and arrows? Yes. Does it make sense to help it keep from being touched? Not really.

See above. It also helps to not think of such attacks as 'touch attacks' as they will no longer be called that with the removal of the touch AC. They are just 'attacks'. Like they were before 3.x.

Another example: Beholders. Scary. But not if you take away their ranged touch attack. Their ranged touch attack is 9 + d20. So, by what you are suggesting, any armor class higher than 28 would require a natural 20 for the beholder to hit with an eye ray. A third level fighter can have an AC that high easy. Even a dexterous third level wizard can be buffed that high. So what if you give the beholder a caster level check? For the beholder in the monster manual, that's 13 (caster level) + d20, or a maximum of 33. It's not at all hard to get an AC that high by the time one normally runs into beholders. Should the disintegrate ray really bounce off a character so easily? I don't think so.

Very good example. It forces me to address a point that I was hoping to avoid in this thread:

The system I'm making will see a lot of changes. As much of 3.x is very interdependent, you really have to [make a lot of changes] as things quickly break down otherwise. For one thing, this system is only planned to go to 15th level, so I don't have to bother about balancing it at levels that won't see play for many years (if ever) in my campaign. Another integral part of my variant is that it will be used for slightly lower powered and slightly lower magic games. As such, the best AC you could hope for at low levels is about 21, from a full plate armor, a large shield and a Dex of 12. And you won't afford that armor for the first couple of levels. Even now, in our 3.x campaign, AC's in the mid 20's are considered high for characters around 10th level. Add the Beholder's Int bonus to his attack roll - for a total of +16 - and it'll hit at least half the time.

At the early levels giving a caster level bonus means squat. Yeah great, my first level wizard has several less effectivespells now.

Which is why I came here, looking for input on how to balance it. Obviously you seem to think that caster level isn't enough and I agree. But what if you add in the bonus from your caster stat?

A caster stat of 16 will make you hit that Goblin with it's leather armor and small shield just as often as before. But I'm very interested in hearing about examples where this system scales badly, especially with regards to spellcasters vs monsters.

Especially when it comes down to adding other rules to compensate for the lack of Touch AC, it seems perfectly clear, that there is no point in removing it.

Like I said above, it's all but impossible to change aspects of 3.x without needing changes somewhere else. E.g., remove AoO's and a whole bunch of stuff has to be addressed. But if I wasn't prepared to do so, I wouldn't be doing this

So, for the next question, consider a system without a touch AC:

What mechanic should be used to make the spells that require an attack roll have a comparable chance of hitting?

(Comparable to the current chance of touch attack vs touch AC.)

 

[DreamChaser]

I'm honestly not getting why you, in the aim of simplifying, want to remove a simple mechanic and replace it with something else, even if that something else is simple. The ripples from 3.x's interdependence make any change more complicated than it seems.

Keep touch attacks. They are simple enough as it is.

DC

 

[Lord Morte]

I can certainly understand where you're comming from, but I feel that the opposite point could just as easily be made: Why wouldn't it be harder to hit someone in a full platemail and a large shield with your Inflict Critical Wounds, opposed to the naked guy beside him?

Remember that earlier editions got by just fine without a touch AC, so you just have to envision these situations like you did before.

It would be easier to hit someone in armour because you don't need to penetrate the armour. The AC bonus for armour, natural armour and shields represents their ability to stop damage effecting you by being thick and solid, not by redirecting it somehow, which is why the AC bonus goes up as the armour gets heavier. Magic bypasses armour, because it either ignores things like metal and leather because it was designed to hurt living tissue (inflict spells, ray of enfeeblement) or because the armour conducts the spell (I know I wouldn't want to be wearing a suit of plate that just got superheated by three scorching rays). You could model this, but that would be more complicated not less.

Earlier editions used a number of methods to work this out, meaning you had to look up the specifics of the spell whenever you cast something different. DnD 3.x only has one.

So, for the next question, consider a system without a touch AC:

What mechanic should be used to make the spells that require an attack roll have a comparable chance of hitting?

(Comparable to the current chance of touch attack vs touch AC.)

If you are going to insist on making things more complicated, may I suggest using a special attack modifer (Caster level+BAB from other classes+ability modifer+misc). It should give the spell casters that same chance to hit as the fighter-types but means that the casters have to keep track of an additional modifier. It also doesn't model what is happening as well, as it makes spellcasters better rather than reducing the effectiveness of armour in certain circumstances.

BTW how are you planning on resolving the touch attacks of ghosts and other incorporeal beings?

 

[Grayhawk]

I'm honestly not getting why you, in the aim of simplifying, want to remove a simple mechanic and replace it with something else, even if that something else is simple. The ripples from 3.x's interdependence make any change more complicated than it seems.

Like I said, I'm changing a lot of stuff and most of it might look like I'm creating complexity elsewhere instead.

Since most 3.x rules are extremely interdependent, all these changes will look this way when you address the things that need to be changed along with them, but since these things must be dealt with, there's no way around that.

For instance, I wouldn't be able to show you my new races and classes without also touching upon how the simplified, consolidated skill system works.

In the end, I'm confident that the final result will be simpler, but the way to that result may not seem simple.

As such, this is not a discussion about whether all this work will be worth it, as it will be to me.

Getting rid of touch AC will in turn make it possible to reduce the various number of AC bonuses that players need to be familiar with. (Does a reflection bonus add to touch AC? Does a dodge bonus? Does a luck bonus? Etc.)