Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Reaper Steve" data-source="post: 3821314" data-attributes="member: 51528">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, anda '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.</blockquote>

Verification