PDA

View Full Version : [4e] Playing without AC



Mark Hall
2008-09-04, 12:16 PM
So, my thought that 4e is like Earthdawn was percolating in my demented little mind, and I was working on "Ok, so how would we make it more like Earthdawn, mechanically?" My first thought, of course, was to get rid of the AC defense, and make everything that targets AC go, instead, to Reflex.

"But wait!" you cry. "What about my Uber-tanker? Where will he be without AC?" Well, that's my second idea. Since, IIRC, they're figured the same, except for the AC bonus from natural armor, armor, shields, and the like, you take your AC and subtract your reflex number. Divide the result by 2, giving you your damage reduction. Things that target Reflex ignore armor, things that currently target AC will instead target Reflex, but be affected by armor.

nagora
2008-09-04, 12:18 PM
He's finally cracked.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-09-04, 12:21 PM
Sounds like a 4E version of the d20 "armor is DR" option. I'm not sure if it will have benefits that outweight the increased complexity, though?

Bryn
2008-09-04, 12:27 PM
I guess there is more verisimilitude in the idea that armour isn't simply a 'you hit or you don't hit' sort of thing. With the numbers you give, though, I have a feeling that the DR wouldn't be very significant against any really meaningful hit. Maybe not doing the half-the numbers step?

This rule makes things more like Dark Heresy. Hence I like it. :smalltongue:

Mark Hall
2008-09-04, 12:30 PM
Part of it is I prefer armor as damage reduction; and the idea only seems complex. For the most part, it's "Any bonus to AC that doesn't explicitly apply to Reflex, gets cut in half and added to the DR".

Mark Hall
2008-09-04, 12:32 PM
I guess there is more verisimilitude in the idea that armour isn't simply a 'you hit or you don't hit' sort of thing. With the numbers you give, though, I have a feeling that the DR wouldn't be very significant against any really meaningful hit. Maybe not doing the half-the numbers step?

This rule makes things more like Dark Heresy. Hence I like it. :smalltongue:

It wouldn't be terribly significant at most player levels of AC; I haven't looked at the MM, yet, to know how ACs work for monsters. Cutting out the "Half the value" might work, but it threatens to make some monsters, at least at 3e levels of AC, unkillable except via magic.

Yakk
2008-09-04, 02:52 PM
How about your AC being temporary HP against attacks that target AC?

Each turn you get back half of your max AC.

...

A problem to all of such schemes is that modifiers to AC don't scale the same way that modifiers to HP and/or Damage need to.

Starsinger
2008-09-04, 02:58 PM
Since, IIRC, they're figured the same, except for the AC bonus from natural armor, armor, shields, and the like, you take your AC and subtract your reflex number. Divide the result by 2, giving you your damage reduction. Things that target Reflex ignore armor, things that currently target AC will instead target Reflex, but be affected by armor.

Actually, shields add to your reflex defense in 4e.

bosssmiley
2008-09-04, 03:01 PM
Given that the four defences of 4E are already more or less mechanically interchangeable this kinda makes sense. Just be wary of turning Ref into the 'god stat' of defences, eh. :smallwink:

Oracle_Hunter
2008-09-04, 03:14 PM
Given that the four defences of 4E are already more or less mechanically interchangeable this kinda makes sense. Just be wary of turning Ref into the 'god stat' of defences, eh. :smallwink:

Also! Remember status effects which only occur on a hit, but may otherwise be AC based (see Fighter Powers). This makes armored fighters much less able to avoid these kinds of nasty attacks.

Edge of Dreams
2008-09-04, 03:45 PM
Also! Remember status effects which only occur on a hit, but may otherwise be AC based (see Fighter Powers). This makes armored fighters much less able to avoid these kinds of nasty attacks.

This is where the problem comes in. An attack against reflex is about 10% to 20% more likely to hit than an attack against AC on average, more so against tanks. My pally (level 3) has 22 AC and 14 reflex. That's a difference of 8! So what if I take 4 less damage from any attack that used to target AC, I'm still getting hit on 40% more of the die rolls. The status effects that come with getting hit like that (bugbear skullcrush, dazed and prone, anyone?) would really suck.

Larrin
2008-09-04, 03:59 PM
Also! Remember status effects which only occur on a hit, but may otherwise be AC based (see Fighter Powers). This makes armored fighters much less able to avoid these kinds of nasty attacks.

This is what i see as being what kills the idea. DR is really incapable of balancing out being stunned/weakened/grabbed/dazed/prone ALOT more often. I think this would make sure no one wears heavy armor and everyone would need buckets of Int/Dex (suck it up paladins/fighters) and generally gets beaten silly by anything with a sharp edge and a status effect. While AC as DR makes logic in life, it doesn't really jive with 4e attack philosophy.

Mark Hall
2008-09-04, 05:15 PM
I'll fiddle with it.