Speculation about interaction of AC and reflex defence

[DaveMage]

yep. Who knows...maybe it is one roll that has to beat AC and (in the case of a ghoul's paralysis) Fort Def. So, a ghoul whose attack roll bypasses its opponent's AC and Fort paralyzes that opponent.

I think I'd prefer two rolls, but I like the concept.

It gives the DM more fudge factor room to help steer the way he or she wants the encounter to go - which could be better if you are playing with new players and need to tone down the difficulty.

If I want my player paralyzed on round 1, I can do that, or if I want to wait until near the end of combat, I can do it that way.

Of course, for advanced players, I'd let the dice fall where they may...

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

yep. Who knows...maybe it is one roll that has to beat AC and (in the case of a ghoul's paralysis) Fort Def. So, a ghoul whose attack roll bypasses its opponent's AC and Fort paralyzes that opponent.

As you said, this is largely the way it works in Saga (where poisons on attacks have their own attack roll against Fort Defenses).

The poisons that are really powerful - like Yuuzhan Vong amphistaff poison - work off the same attack roll as their normall attack (thus one roll compares to both Ref and Fort Defense).

Generally speaking, Ref Defense is the highest Defense. Thus, anything which much beat Ref Defense has usually already beaten the other two (hence, more powerful poisons use a single roll).

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

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).

It is an interesting idea, but I don't think this helps the "does it hit, does it hurt" dilemma. High Reflex combatants don't get hit as often, but when they do it is guaranteed to hurt unless they are wearing heavier armor, since anything that beats the Reflex defense will also beat a low AC. This pretty much means classes like the Rogue will probably forgo wearing armor at all, since it will offer no additional benefit, except if they are caught helpless.

 

[Plane Sailing]

This pretty much means classes like the Rogue will probably forgo wearing armor at all, since it will offer no additional benefit, except if they are caught helpless.

Which fits thematically, no?

 

[Reaper Steve]

I've tried three times to type a response to this, and failed in each case. I'll just go for it now, as it continues to be on my mind.

First: the previewed changes to defenses are a huge improvement.
Second: I think they should have went a little further. I know it's not rocket surgery, but I think having some attacks be against Reflex Def and others be against AC is an imperfect system, especially when there would be no need for it if they dropped the 'armor as defense' assumption.

For the most streamlined and simple system, they should just have one Defense-Reflex-that covers the 'physical attack' category.

The problem is 4E is still hanging on to the notion that armor prevents you from being hit, instead of protecting you from damage. This then drives having AC separate from Reflex defense.

If armor was removed from the equation, then Reflex defense would always determine if you are hit or not.

While D&D's 'roll to hit, roll for damage' is an easy system, the principles behind it are actually rather weird. First, the degree of success of an attack roll doesn't matter (getting the exact number required is no different than rolling 15 points more than needed.)
Since 'hit points' represent the ability to avoid incapacitating damage, the degree of success is actually determined by the damage roll, which is completely unrelated to the 'to hit' roll.
So what we wind up with is kind of a backwards resolution. What armor class is actually saying is: "if I do not take any extradordinary measures to defend myself, what is the likelihood of an attack penetrating my armor enough to hurt me? I don't care if it actually hits me as long as it doesn't hurt." Then, after it has been determined that an attack would make it through the armor, damage is rolled, which actually represents how much effort the target had to use to prevent that attack from harming him. Strange.
The problem is, despite what the official definition of a hit and hit points are, the truth of the matter is that players call a successful attack roll 'a hit' which actually causes 'damage.'

If Reflex defense were used against all attacks and was defined (in combat context) as 'the ability to be missed' then a failed attack roll would truly be a miss. You would never have to worry about the deference between touch or not when making the attack roll... a miss is a miss.
If hit by an attack that must penetrate armor, then armor class could prevent/reduce that damage.

Man, I still don't think I've stated that as I would have liked.

My point: 4E could be more streamlined and elegant if it would let go of the 'armor as defense' concept. This would:
1) Make every attack a touch attack. Did it hit or not?
2) Armor would then reduce damage.
3) Armor class could then take the form of DR.

Now, I can see two different Reflex defenses...
the one as defined for purely getting out of the way of things, like pits, dragon breath, and ranged attacks, and
a 'Combat Defense' (which would replace AC) that represents actively defending oneself against a melee attacker. This would not include armor, but it would include Dex and other things (like if a Fighter gets +2 BAB for favored weapon, that +2 would also apply to Combat Defense.) This number would more accurately reflect how hard it is fo someone to hit--actually HIT--the opponent.

Oh well, this is the only major issue that 4E doesn't appear to be addressing as well as I'd like. The good news is $e's approach is still a major improvement and I'll be able to tolerate just fine...at least until I achieve 'system mastery' and feel comfortable making changes and understanding their full ramifications.

 

[Riley]

Speculation: Is AC just Reflex Defense plus armor bonus?

I just had these thoughts, and haven't read any speculation yet on the subject, so I thought I'd throw it out there:

• Star Wars Saga Edition did away with AC (I hope this is right) and replaced it with attacks against Reflex Defense.
• D&D is keeping AC. AC will have to scale over time to keep up with improving attack bonuses. (This is currently achieved by magic items, which are to be de-emphasized).
• Touch AC is gone, but there's still a need to adjudicate touch attacks. After all, Plate Armor doesn't provide any protection against Shocking Grasp, or against being tackled. What would be the simplest measure of one's ability to avoid a touch attack? Presumably, one's reflex defence.
• If Touch AC = Reflex Defense, it follows that AC = Reflex Defense + Armor bonus

It has a simple beauty to it: Touch AC is eliminated. Reflex defense will improve with advancement. Basing AC on Reflex Defense allows AC to improve organically without the need for a seperate progression.

Still, something also needs to be added to account for the negative effect of Plate Armor on one's ability to dodge things in the first place. Currently it's a limit on dexterity bonuses to armor class. However, it could be a reflex defense penalty. Say, Plate Armor has a +8 AC bonus, but a -3 Reflex Defense penalty. Still fairly elegant. Certainly moreso than the current "Max Dex Bonus" system.

Thoughts?

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

Seems like a good analysis to me.

 

[Riley]

Seems like a good analysis to me.

It came to me on the john. Wrong or not, I discover most of my best ideas on the john.

 

[coyote6]

To clarify:

What I'd like to see is natural 20 is always an automatic hit. If you could *only* hit on a natural 20, you do normal damage. If your 20 + bonuses equals or exceeds the target defence, you get a critical for double damage.

Otherwise, you find that a half-blind octogenarian peasant can't actually score a normal hit on a dragon. He gets critical hits or nothing. That seems a little strange to me.

You'll still run into that, albeit rarely. If your attack score + 20 = the target's AC exactly, then when you attack said target, you'll only hit on a 20 -- but that would equal the target's AC, so you'd critical.

The only way to not have that effect is with a confirmation roll of some sort.

 

[Gloombunny]

You'll still run into that, albeit rarely. If your attack score + 20 = the target's AC exactly, then when you attack said target, you'll only hit on a 20 -- but that would equal the target's AC, so you'd critical.

The only way to not have that effect is with a confirmation roll of some sort.

Um, it's very easy to not have that effect without a confirmation roll. Just have the rule say "you can only crit if your attack bonus + 20 exceeds the target's AC", instead of "equals or exceeds".

It's still kind of weird that a less skilled fighter gets the same number of critical hits but fewer regular ones, but on the balance I think it's better to tolerate that weirdness than to have an extra roll.