Speculation about interaction of AC and reflex defence

[Plane Sailing]

I was just thinking about AC and reflex defence, touch attacks and the like, and that got me speculating about what I think could be a neat idea (although I've got no idea whether or not it reflects the actual design of course!)

What if:

a) AC just represents physical toughness. Armour, natural armour etc. No Dex bonus or anything like that.

Then in normal combat you make one attack roll and match it against both AC and Reflex defence. It has to bypass *both* to score damage (it has to hit the target - bypass reflex defence - and penetrate the armour - bypass AC).

Touch attacks (like spells) only have to match the Reflex defence, because the toughness of their covering doesn't matter.

Attacks against helpless targets only have to match the AC, because they are not dodging anything at that point.

Surprise attacks or attacks on flatfooted opponents could be considered to be the latter case.

It would be a nice arrangement; making it obvious whether it was someones dodginess or his armour which protected from an attack (and giving room for swashbuckling guys with high Reflex defence to stand next to tough guys with plate armour on a potentially equal basis, using their appropriate defences against attacks).

Could it happen this way? I don't know, but it seems like it might be a quite elegant way of handling the old 'does it hit, does it hurt' question with a single die roll against the static defences.

Cheers

 

[Gloombunny]

My guess is that AC will = Reflex defense + armor/shield bonus, and that a target being flat-footed will grant the attacker some sort of advantage rather than reducing the target's AC. Touch attacks will go against the Reflex defense by itself.

Armor/shield bonus without the Reflex might be used for helpless targets, or maybe they'll just be hit automatically.

 

[Szatany]

and my guess is that AC will be for parrying and will consist of BAB + Str + shield bonus. It will be separate from reflex defense which will be used for dodging.

 

[Grazzt]

Interesting idea PS.

My guess, it works similar to the SWSE system. With D&D, it would be rolling against AC. If the attack deals add'l damage of some sort (read allows a save in 3e), it makes an attack roll against your Defense score (Ref, Fort, Will).

For example, a ghoul makes an attack roll against your AC. It succeeds. Now, it gets a 'special attack' roll against your Fort Def. If that succeeds, you are paralyzed (or contract ghoul fever or whatever).

Basically how Saga does it for traps, poisons, etc. (sans the attack roll against AC since it doesnt exist)

 

[Amphimir Míriel]

I was just thinking about AC and reflex defence, touch attacks and the like, and that got me speculating about what I think could be a neat idea (although I've got no idea whether or not it reflects the actual design of course!)

What if:

a) AC just represents physical toughness. Armour, natural armour etc. No Dex bonus or anything like that.

Then in normal combat you make one attack roll and match it against both AC and Reflex defence. It has to bypass *both* to score damage (it has to hit the target - bypass reflex defence - and penetrate the armour - bypass AC).

Touch attacks (like spells) only have to match the Reflex defence, because the toughness of their covering doesn't matter.

Attacks against helpless targets only have to match the AC, because they are not dodging anything at that point.

Surprise attacks or attacks on flatfooted opponents could be considered to be the latter case.

It would be a nice arrangement; making it obvious whether it was someones dodginess or his armour which protected from an attack (and giving room for swashbuckling guys with high Reflex defence to stand next to tough guys with plate armour on a potentially equal basis, using their appropriate defences against attacks).

Could it happen this way? I don't know, but it seems like it might be a quite elegant way of handling the old 'does it hit, does it hurt' question with a single die roll against the static defences.

Cheers

Dios te oiga

 

[Stalker0]

Didn't a recent article mention there would be no touch or flatfooted AC anymore?

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

Didn't a recent article mention there would be no touch or flatfooted AC anymore?

Yes, one did. I saw it quoted in a thread here not more than a few hours ago, so it should be somewhere on the front page. I'd link but its getting late (well early) in this timezone and I don't have search.

 

[Kunimatyu]

The lack of flatfooted AC suggests that AC will not have a Dexterity-based component.

 

[Gloombunny]

The lack of flatfooted AC suggests that AC will not have a Dexterity-based component.

Or that the Dexterity-based component will apply even when flatfooted-or-its-equivalent.

 

[Frostmarrow]

Interesting idea PS.

My guess, it works similar to the SWSE system. With D&D, it would be rolling against AC. If the attack deals add'l damage of some sort (read allows a save in 3e), it makes an attack roll against your Defense score (Ref, Fort, Will).

For example, a ghoul makes an attack roll against your AC. It succeeds. Now, it gets a 'special attack' roll against your Fort Def. If that succeeds, you are paralyzed (or contract ghoul fever or whatever).

Basically how Saga does it for traps, poisons, etc. (sans the attack roll against AC since it doesnt exist)

I hope this isn't the case. Nothing stops the action as much as confirm rolls. I'd rather have it Plane Sailing's way with two scores to beat.

In my system there is Parry, Armor, and Dodge. Pick two.