Magic Vs AC is Very Poor Reasoning

[Dire Bare]

I disagree with the OP, but I see where he is coming from. And yes, I do think how you view magic in your D&D campaign would color how you see the mechanics of a magical attack.

I think it breaks down to AC representing both the protection of your armor and your physical ability to dodge, it is just as abstract as hit points. And just like hit points, some folks want more granularity in their D&D game, and earlier editions sometimes gave this to us either in the core rules or in optional rules.

I think how hit points and AC works in D&DN so far works just fine for the core system, but I would love to see an optional system that separates dodging from armor for AC, and separates vitality from wounds for hit points.

Basic D&D gained both of these as optional rules at some point (I think in the Gazetteer series of supplements). You had two values for "AC", an AC (Armor Class) and and AV (Armor Value), which are incredibly confusing terms but basically separated your ability to dodge (AC) and your ability to soak damage (AV), if I remember correctly. Hit points were separated into "hit points" (vitality, energy) and "wound points" which represented taking serious physical wounds, like losing a limb, and could happen at any point in a battle, not just when you ran out of hp. It was a long time ago, and I remember the system as being rather imperfect, but I enjoyed the extra granularity of it. But then again, when Player's Option was released for AD&D2, I was all over that madness too!

 

[Falling Icicle]

Except its unerring nature has a long standing tradition, it's part of the magic of the spell.

This is just one more reason why armor should give DR rather than making the wearer harder to hit, IMO. Any damaging spell that auto-hits or has a saving throw instead of an attack roll completely ignores armor, even though one would think that wearing armor would help reduce the damage from waves of fire or acid being splashed on you, even if just by a little bit.

This is kind of off-topic here, but another problem with armor making you harder to hit is that it makes the math very swingy. A character in full plate and a heavy shield is 55% harder to hit than one who is naked (assuming an average dexterity score). One thing I noticed in the playtest is how swingy the math is, and how hard some characters and monsters are to hit. I'd much rather have a more consistent chance to hit an enemy and face DR from armor, because then at least I'm steadily accomplishing something, even if I'm just whittling them down a few hp at a time. That is more fun than miss miss miss.

 

[Blackbrrd]

I think it's a great rule. Attacking something? Well, then you attack AC. Easy to remember, nothing fiddly about it? The touch attack AC thing was just horribly slow and annoying, mostly because you had to calculate it and it just made some spells stupidly overpowered. I was fine with the 4 different defenses of 4e though.

 

[LordGraz'zt]

You could always add it in as a houserule module - or maybe there will be a module for more realism.

For the base system I am happy with AC as the only determinant to hit.

Making all the spells versus armor class is just uncreative and boring. We can do better!

This depends on how you want to define better - yes it can be made more realistic but increased realism means increased complexity - which makes no sense for the base system.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

I'm pretty sure that the only spells we've seen so far that require an attack roll vs. AC are those that act like missiles, rays or other directed attacks. As noted above, if you're heavily armoured, shouldn't you be less likely to take damage from a beam of fiery light?

Most of the other types of spells you talk about *do* target different defences, by the use of saving throws. Dexterity will help you against fireball. Wisdom will help you against Phantasmal Killer. Charisma will help you against Charm. In each case, to make it simple, your Intelligence is the deciding factor on how difficult the saving throw is.

If arcane magic is about superior knowledge of the way the universe works such that you can shape magic into a form you desire, then yes, your intelligence against the target's appropriate defence makes the most sense. If you were trying to charm them with your personality, it would be Charisma vs. Charisma. You're not though, you're cheating, you're using magic!

 

[Doug McCrae]

It's D&D. It's not supposed to be realistic.

 

[Minigiant]

I don't see the problem.
It makes sense that hard non-explosive missiles and magical touches are blocked by magic.

 

[eamon]

I'm pretty sure that the only spells we've seen so far that require an attack roll vs. AC are those that act like missiles, rays or other directed attacks. As noted above, if you're heavily armoured, shouldn't you be less likely to take damage from a beam of fiery light?

Most of the other types of spells you talk about *do* target different defences, by the use of saving throws. Dexterity will help you against fireball. Wisdom will help you against Phantasmal Killer. Charisma will help you against Charm. In each case, to make it simple, your Intelligence is the deciding factor on how difficult the saving throw is.

This. Physical attacks that happen to be caused by magic make most sense if they're treated like any other physical attack on the receiving end - i.e. they target AC, with few exceptions.

If you're attacking with a shocking grasp, and you're wearing (say) leather armor, that armor should absorb some of the shock or make it harder to touch a vulnerable spot.

That a spiritual hammer targets AC is pretty obvious.

For searing light, I'd say it's pretty optimistic that the armor merely makes hitting more difficult. It seems to me that armor would be exceedingly effective against mere light (even very intense light). But it's magic, so sure...

Whenever it makes sense for armor not to count, you've got a Dexterity saving throw.

Honestly though, even in a fireball, I'd imagine that I'd appreciate the armor to keep out at least some of the heat.

 

[ArmoredSaint]

I think spells that create physical energy effects that attack the victim's body should absolutely target AC. Plate mail absorbs and diffuses the heat from the burning ray so that it doesn't burn your precious pink skin. I don't understand why the game designers ever decided otherwise.

I agree. A magic missile, which is basically an arrow/bolt formed from force, shouldn't ignore armor just because it's "magic."

Any magical bolt that works by essentially creating a physical projectile that could miss (Attack less than 10), be dodged (Dex bonus to AC), or be intervened by hitting a physical barrier (Any number that falls between 10+Dex and a targets max AC) as possible outcomes should be represented by attacking AC. In the end it's not substantially different from firing an arrow.

I agree with these folks. I like the idea that armour could offer some protection vs. magic now. Armour has often gotten shortchanged in D&D. I want to see it be worth something in this edition.

 

[whearp]

So far, I'm all for the split attack/save system for magic. It just makes sense that some types of magical attacks require a specific effort on the part of the caster to aim it at a protected target while others must be avoided/withstood by the victim.

Am I hurling softball-sized balls of light at you? Then it's on me to properly aim them at an unprotected part of your body.

Am I blasting the hallway full of magically-conjured fire? Then you had better get the heck out of the way.

It's a beautiful compromise, bringing together the best of old and new thought. My players really enjoyed it.