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

[Ferrix]

I'm just wondering how far this simplification is going cause pretty much I think d&d is a pretty simple system when it comes down to it.

 

[Grayhawk]

I'm just wondering how far this simplification is going cause pretty much I think d&d is a pretty simple system when it comes down to it.

No stone will be left untouched

The goal is a system that mixes the cooler stuff of 3.x - some feats, some unified mechanics - with the less stringent rules of previous editions.

Please note that this is not a critisism of 3.x, as I believe it's a solid system for what it tries to do.

But after playing it for a while, I'd prefer to 'get back' to a simpler system, that plays less like a strategic wargame and which lends it self more to improvisation, spur of the moment ideas, the imagining of battles in your head contra the counting of squares on a battlemat, etc.

Not saying that this is a better way to play, it's just different - and I've missed it for a while.

 

[Thanee]

Hey, I have the solution:

Make all attacks "touch attacks" and change armor to DR!

Bye
Thanee

 

[Grayhawk]

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

Good point! I hadn't thought about that, so I'll have to give it some thought. Thanks for bringing it up.

Make all attacks "touch attacks" and change armor to DR!

That could propably be made to work, but I'm not a big fan of armor as DR in D&D's AC system.

I've always been pretty satisfied with the abstraction of the AC system, where a high Dex as well a armor make you harder to hit(hurt).

So, as long as it's D&D, I'm not looking for the extra level of realism (and maybe even added complexity) of armor as DR

 

[ForceUser]

Removing touch ACs screws spellcasters. Without accompanying revamps to any spell that requires a touch attack to succeed, you will have successfully gelded, well, everyone.

 

[Grayhawk]

Removing touch ACs screws spellcasters. Without accompanying revamps to any spell that requires a touch attack to succeed, you will have successfully gelded, well, everyone.

Even if spells that require an attack roll use the mechanic of d20 +caster level +casting stat modifier?

 

[dvvega]

Personally, somewhere in my subconscious, I agree that Touch Attacks shouldn't exist. However the reason is not because I want to simplify the rules, but rather that I don't agree with a spellcaster being able to bypass armour. I think touch spells should actually touch the opponent on the body (clothed is okay under this concept).

Case in Point: I'm in full plate mail - there are limited access points to my body, especially since I have padded armour underneath and possibly chain lining. I am hit with a cause wounds spell - how did he touch me in the first place, I'm surrounded in metal. I think that a spell caster should have to hit my normal AC ... in addition if I wear magical armour, I should have magical protection (UA added a house rule for this situation which allows magic bonuses to count, but not a complete solution).

It makes certain spellcaster types extremely powerful. For example: a wizard with a maximised ray of enfeeblement requires a touch attack. The super AC fighter suddenly can't even walk in his armour because of the ray that touched him. If the ray had to get past his armour, he at least has a chance to avoid it.

I agree with the fact that Touch Attacks are suitable for a grapple - you are only grabbing onto someone, not trying to penetrate their armour.

The exception I can see is a spell like Shocking Grasp. Touch the guy in metal armour and the freak should fry. But this can easily be translated into a bonus to hit a person in metal armour, and some extra damage (or no save if in metal).

Of course with this concept, bypassing someones metal armour would be less strength based (you're not punching through it, just trying to get into the joints etc), and possible more dexterity based. Or perhaps you could allow either stat since strength could be justified as pushing past the opponents shield to touch under his arm or something -=shrug=-.

Well I guess I deviated from the thread's purpose.

 

[Grayhawk]

I agree with the fact that Touch Attacks are suitable for a grapple - you are only grabbing onto someone, not trying to penetrate their armour.

Yes, that does make sense - but it's not really an issue for me, as I'm planning to use opposed attack rolls for grapple checks (as well as for the rest of the special combat moves, like mentioned in my first post.

The exception I can see is a spell like Shocking Grasp. Touch the guy in metal armour and the freak should fry. But this can easily be translated into a bonus to hit a person in metal armour, and some extra damage (or no save if in metal).

Shocking Grasp was actually one of the things that I had thought about prior to posting this thread, but which I didn't want to bring up right away, as I feel it can be taken care of easily (as you said yourself).

Well I guess I deviated from the thread's purpose.

Not at all

But I would still like to hear how all of you feel that d20 +caster level +casting stat modifier (for spells that require an attack roll) compares to the current system?

Specifically when it comes to spellcaster's chance of hitting monsters. Do the two methods scale about the same or is one notably better?

 

[dvvega]

d20 +caster level +casting stat

will actually not be a fair thing.

You are effectively giving a spellcaster a Fighters BAB for purposes of touch spells.

This was done with Turning, and its understandable a cleric should be more powerful at turning than he/she is at beating things up, however if you allow all spell casters to get the same benefits as a fighter when attacking with spells then you're making it even easier for them to cast their magic.

 

[Darren]

Specifically when it comes to spellcaster's chance of hitting monsters. Do the two methods scale about the same or is one notably better?

It's variable.

What you are proposing works in favor of the spellcaster against low AC opponents, but often against them against high AC opponents. The two don't necessarily balance out.

You said you have a low-power, low-magic game in mind, so I used CR 8 creatures with nothing more than first level spells and reasonable low-power stats. Math-fu follows:

Mind Flayer, CR 8
AC 15, or Touch AC 13
(from Monster Manual)

Mohrg, CR 8
AC 23, or Touch AC 14
(from Monster Manual)

Fighter 8, CR 8
AC 25 (20 without expertise), or Touch AC 17 (12 without expertise)
(Dex +1, Dodge Feat +1, Combat Expertise +5, Full Plate +8)

Dire Tiger, CR 8
AC 17, or Touch AC 11
(from Monster Manual)

Wizard 8, CR 8
AC 20, or Touch AC 12, or AC 12 for both without spells.
(Dex +2, Mage Armor +4, Shield +4)

Attacking them we have a Wiz or Sor 8, with 14 Dexterity (+2 modifier) and 18 in primary spellcasting stat for a +4 modifier

So...

Rules as written:
Ranged touch spell: d20 + Dex + BAB = d20 + 2 + 4 = 7-26
Chance to hit AC 13 (mind flayer): 70%
Chance to hit AC 14 (mohrg): 65%
Chance to hit AC 17 (fighter): 50%
Chance to hit AC 12 (fighter without expertise): 75%
Chance to hit AC 11 (dire tiger): 80%
Chance to hit AC 12 (wizard with spells): 75%
Chance to hit AC 12 (wizard without spells): 75%

As you propose:
Ranged touch spell: d20 + Int/Cha + Caster Lvl = d20 + 4 + 8 = 13-32
Chance to hit AC 15 (mind flayer): 90%
Chance to hit AC 23 (mohrg): 50%
Chance to hit AC 25 (fighter): 40%
Chance to hit AC 20 (fighter without expertise): 65%
Chance to hit AC 17 (dire tiger): 80%
Chance to hit AC 20 (wizard with spells): 65%
Chance to hit AC 12 (wizard without spells): 95% (1 on d20 always miss)

Look at what happens to the low AC opponents. Ouch. High AC things get a little harder to hit.

*shrugs*
I'm not going to tell you how to design your game, but my humble opinion is that Touch AC isn't any more complicated than anything you have proposed, and what you are proposing introduces some balance issues. I do not know what could replace Touch AC that scales well and does not introduce balance issues. Anyway, if you think the effort to get it to work is worth it and you like the results, good luck to you and happy gaming.