|
"
For that matter, the stronger you are, the easier it is to hit someone with a sword? It's just the way the system is built."
With your sword, your strenght bonus help you pierce armors and shields, thats not the case when you deliver a touch spell.
But I see your point, not every enemy with high AC use a heavy armor, STR still help you hit a tiny fly with your sword :) It`s just the way system is built.
I think the OP has a very good point. But we might have gotten sidetracked on the warlock.
I had a character who was a Cleric2/Monk1/Master of Shrouds9. IE, 12th level. Every turn he summoned 4 shadows. Those 4 shadows would do what they could to move into flanking position and attack with their piddly little +7 or +9 touch attack (3 normally, 2 for increased str (augment summoning is a required feat for the PRC), 2 for a 5th level class feature of MoS, possibly 2 for flanking) and strength drain. They would beat the hell out of anything that wasn't undead. Generally, 3 or all 4 of the shadows hit, dealing around 10-14 points of strength damage... per turn. Dragons fell rather quickly against this tactic, finding themselves unable to hit the party. Sure they could tear apart my summons, and face the 50% miss chance for incorporeal creatures, but on my next turn I'd summon more, and if even a couple of them got through to deal str damage, the dragon would soon be killed. Basically any monster was suseptable to having its str drained to 0 and annihilated. Even if this wasn't the case, they sufferred so badly after the first round or two that they were no longer a threat. It was effectively save or lose, except you know... they didn't get a save. The DM and I agreed that I should stop playing Vaughn and bring in another character, it's the only time that's ever happened.
Ok, but that's not OGL you say? Well, we were talking about the warlock, so I figured I'd add that. Even so, fine, here's something that is OGL. How about ray of enfeeblement? No save, touch attack to lose 1d6+5 str at higher levels. Or maximized for 11 str damage. That hurts, that hurts a lot. -5 to attack and damage is pretty broken for a first level spell, especially if it almost always hits (touch) and allows no save. Scorching ray? Maxed for 72 points of damage? Yeah, that hurts. Any Orb of _____ spell, that is a touch attack and ignores SR? [ok, not ogl, but so broken it bears mentioning] Good god, Otto's Irrisistible Dance? Fire Seeds? Enervation? Energy Drain? How about using Telekenesis to hurl alchemists fire at the enemy, 15 touch attacks, ~28d6 damage (chances are you'll miss once, but it continues to burn for the next round). Worse, if there is a druid in the party, throw fire seeds at the enemy with telekenesis. The damage there is capped only by the amount of spells the druid is willing to devote to fire seeds, up to a max of 15 i guess, which would be 300d6 damage at 20th level i guess, making anything without complete immunity to fire basically dead. That's assuming of course, the druid isn't maximizing or empowering any of those, which, if he's going to use his higher level slots anyway, he may as well. BTW, fire seeds doesn't allow a save or SR.
So all of the above (except orb spells) are Core. I think that's why the OP was upset about touch ac being too low. I think something indeed needs to be done about spells like these, I can certainly see raising touch ACs as a way to solve it, but also I think maybe just allowing a save for most of the above effects would just about do the trick (*ducks in preparation for the oncoming tomatoes).
|
...Wait, Mage Armor boosts touch AC?
I'm still trying to figure out how doing abysmal damage is in any way a sign that an optimizer is at the helm.
Mage Armor is a force effect. I believe the rule stems from the fact that force effects do stack with touch AC. So yes, Mage Armor boosts Touch AC. That's the way we've always played it, so I must have heard it somewhere, right?
Mage Armor is a force effect. I believe the rule stems from the fact that force effects do stack with touch AC. So yes, Mage Armor boosts Touch AC. That's the way we've always played it, so I must have heard it somewhere, right?...Wait, Mage Armor boosts touch AC?
I'm still trying to figure out how doing abysmal damage is in any way a sign that an optimizer is at the helm.
I believe this is in error. The force effect of the mage armor means it applies against incorporeal attacks, not all touch attacks.
In my home playtest of the Beta I am already suggesting a House Rule of Shield bonus applies to Touch AC, but not to Flat-Footed AC.CJ
I've done this in my regular 3.5 D&D game as well. I think it works nicely. It means the touch attack must be a bodily touch and not just touching something someone is holding.
|
|
I believe this is in error. The force effect of the mage armor means it applies against incorporeal attacks, not all touch attacks.Mage Armor is a force effect. I believe the rule stems from the fact that force effects do stack with touch AC. So yes, Mage Armor boosts Touch AC. That's the way we've always played it, so I must have heard it somewhere, right?...Wait, Mage Armor boosts touch AC?
I'm still trying to figure out how doing abysmal damage is in any way a sign that an optimizer is at the helm.
And I believe you may be right about my error. Thinking about it again, since it's an armor bonus it would have to be a specific comment in the spell or a specific comment about force effects. It could be an incorrect assumption based on the comment about incorporeal touch attacks.
On the other hand, deflection bonuses would stack, so Shield of Faith should provide a bonus to the touch AC (since I believe that's a deflection bonus, not a shield bonus).
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
And I believe you may be right about my error. Thinking about it again, since it's an armor bonus it would have to be a specific comment in the spell or a specific comment about force effects. It could be an incorrect assumption based on the comment about incorporeal touch attacks.
On the other hand, deflection bonuses would stack, so Shield of Faith should provide a bonus to the touch AC (since I believe that's a deflection bonus, not a shield bonus).
Yes, that is correct. Mage Armor is an armor bonus and does not help vs. touch attacks. Shield of Faith is a deflection bonus and DOES help, though it does not stack with, say, a ring of protection.
Really, in my experience, some of the most effective defenses against touch attacks are things like mirror image, entropic shield, and displacement. :D The AC doesn't matter if it just flat-out misses.
... once the spell hits the touch AC, many of them are mitigated by permitting saves (disintegrate), being hampered by energy resistance (scorching ray), or being affected by spell resistance (just about everything).
The only problem I see with Touch AC's are the spells that do not fall into the above categories. Touch spells that have no save, and no other way to resist them (including to at least some extent Spell Resistance). I'm looking at you Touch of Idiocy!
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
The only problem I see with Touch AC's are the spells that do not fall into the above categories. Touch spells that have no save, and no other way to resist them (including to at least some extent Spell Resistance). I'm looking at you Touch of Idiocy!
IMO, touch-range touch spells (as opposed to ranged touch spells) should be a bit more powerful as they require that the spellcaster expose themselves (or their familiar) to significant harm in order to pull it off. Of course, spectral hand is a fantastic way to circumvent this but then you're casting two spells instead of one. And touch of idiocy isn't really all that powerful unless used multiple times, which means it's costing you several turns and several spell slots... in which case it should do something significant.
Of course, YMMV.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
I think the OP has a very good point. But we might have gotten sidetracked on the warlock.
I had a character who was a Cleric2/Monk1/Master of Shrouds9. IE, 12th level. Every turn he summoned 4 shadows. Those 4 shadows would do what they could to move into flanking position and attack with their piddly little +7 or +9 touch attack (3 normally, 2 for increased str (augment summoning is a required feat for the PRC), 2 for a 5th level class feature of MoS, possibly 2 for flanking) and strength drain. They would beat the hell out of anything that wasn't undead. Generally, 3 or all 4 of the shadows hit, dealing around 10-14 points of strength damage... per turn. Dragons fell rather quickly against this tactic, finding themselves unable to hit the party. Sure they could tear apart my summons, and face the 50% miss chance for incorporeal creatures, but on my next turn I'd summon more, and if even a couple of them got through to deal str damage, the dragon would soon be killed. Basically any monster was suseptable to having its str drained to 0 and annihilated. Even if this wasn't the case, they sufferred so badly after the first round or two that they were no longer a threat. It was effectively save or lose, except you know... they didn't get a save. The DM and I agreed that I should stop playing Vaughn and bring in another character, it's the only time that's ever happened.
I guess this would work if you trapped the dragon in a contained area, but most dragons would simply fly away much faster than your legionsof shadows, then swoop in, snatch the master of shrouds, and transfer to mouth and chomp away. Whatever shadows are left over can be breath weaponed at lesiure.
|
I think the OP has a very good point. But we might have gotten sidetracked on the warlock.
I had a character who was a Cleric2/Monk1/Master of Shrouds9. IE, 12th level. Every turn he summoned 4 shadows. Those 4 shadows would do what they could to move into flanking position and attack with their piddly little +7 or +9 touch attack (3 normally, 2 for increased str (augment summoning is a required feat for the PRC), 2 for a 5th level class feature of MoS, possibly 2 for flanking) and strength drain. They would beat the hell out of anything that wasn't undead. Generally, 3 or all 4 of the shadows hit, dealing around 10-14 points of strength damage... per turn. Dragons fell rather quickly against this tactic, finding themselves unable to hit the party. Sure they could tear apart my summons, and face the 50% miss chance for incorporeal creatures, but on my next turn I'd summon more, and if even a couple of them got through to deal str damage, the dragon would soon be killed. Basically any monster was suseptable to having its str drained to 0 and annihilated. Even if this wasn't the case, they sufferred so badly after the first round or two that they were no longer a threat. It was effectively save or lose, except you know... they didn't get a save. The DM and I agreed that I should stop playing Vaughn and bring in another character, it's the only time that's ever happened.
Ok, but that's not OGL you say? Well, we were talking about the warlock, so I figured I'd add that. Even so, fine, here's something that is OGL. How about ray of enfeeblement? No save, touch attack to lose 1d6+5 str at higher levels. Or maximized for 11 str damage. That hurts, that hurts a lot. -5 to attack and damage is pretty broken for a first level spell, especially if it almost always hits (touch) and allows no save. Scorching ray? Maxed for 72 points of damage? Yeah, that hurts. Any Orb of _____ spell, that is a touch attack and ignores SR? [ok, not ogl, but so broken it bears mentioning] Good god, Otto's Irrisistible Dance? Fire Seeds?...
Very nice comments on the issue. Thanks.
shadows have 40 foot fly speed with Good maneuverability. So between just summoning them far away and having an 80 foot charge, I think i'll be able to hit the dragon, that's not going to be a problem dude..
Once it's sitting at -14 strength or so, good luck hitting my AC. I might even be able to beat him in a grapple with one or two more shadow hits.
Oh yeah, also: wraithstrike. and/or gloves of wraithstrike. brooooooken.
Orb of x broken? It doesn't even do more damage than any other spell of the level. It does have a supporting effect except... even on these forums, people are advocating support effects added to the 1d6/level blasting spells. So um... you do a bit of damage, and maybe status an enemy for a round... That is a far cry from overpowered.
Edit: As if it were not bad enough martial types got worse at fighting by default due to linear damage/quadratic enemy HP gain, now you're magnifying it by tripling the chance he automatically fails?
I am really beginning to wonder if certain individuals here are really trying to bury all non casters for good.
This comment is ripe. You (I assume) believe fighters should be given enough BAB to actually wound the elder dragon, right...Yeah, but I basically don't think Touch AC needs to be changed itself.
I don't think Elder Dragons need a massive bonus to their Touch AC, just because they have massive HD. I mean, take a pseudo-stationary blob creature, but Gargantuan with massive HD, why should it get a Touch AC bonus if it's not even really moving? And the Dragon, it's so huge that even if it moves, SOME of it is still in you/your ray's reach, right?
If Touch AC bonuses ARE integrated with Defensive CMB, these bonuses WILL be doubly important to have, though... (well, as important as they were in 3.5)
Look, I know I've showered today, so I shouldn't be "ripe".
I just gave a couple off-hand examples where I thought linking HD/BAB to Touch AC would give pretty wonky results. You didn't address those examples at all.BAB is a function of AC
BAB is a function of Touch AC
BAB is increases by level
AC is static but highly augmentable
Touch AC is static and is virtually not augmentable
AC should remain the same.
Touch should go up. Like BAB your base line offense this is your base line defense. Both should go up. Again AC should remain unchanged but your touch should increase. I would even be a fan of saying if you touch is higher than your standard AC then you can use your touch (think monk).
OK, first, what you're saying isn't accurate (BAB is a function of level&class/HD, not AC),
but I understand what you're trying to say, that BAB's effectiveness is countered by high AC(or: melee effectiveness is a function of BAB and AC).
But like you say, "that logic is D&D": The way it's always worked is at 1st level, butt-naked opponents are only hit half the time, but as you rise in level, it becomes easier. If AC is rising as well, that just nullifies the BAB increase (for equivalent opponents). You might as well NOT increase the AC with level, but decrease the amount of BAB increase for everyone, right? (Sure, LOW level opponents don't get it, but if it's 80% the same effect (and equal/stronger opponents are the ones you really worry about), I just don't think it's the highest priority addition for Pathfinder.)
Someone mentioned the idea of replacing Touch AC with Reflex Saves, which may make sense for certain spells... I'm not particularly opposed to that... And couldn't this "issue" be much more simply addressed, by introducing a few new spells that increased Touch AC?
Your response to my post seemed pretty miffed, but just because you say "I think this SHOULD, I think that SHOULD" doesn't make it universally accepted... The people at Paizo have already said THEY'RE MOSTLY HAPPY WITH 3.5, so rules updates/clarifications that are SIMPLE and DON'T try to re-work the basics of the game would be the MOST VIABLE to actually be added. I'm willing to bet that level scaling AC *WILL NOT* be added to Pathfinder, for just that reason. There's probably a couple improvements (less Touch spells/more Reflex Saves, more Touch AC boost spells) that ARE simple add-ons, and would be viable.
This is the approach *I* take when making suggestions: I might suggest a whole mechanism (say, Bonded Item) should be replaced, but I also think of ways it could be improved, IF FOR WHATEVER REASON Jason doesn't want to go with the wholesale change I think is justified... I think a pinch of humbleness goes along ways if you're actually interested in making productive contributions to a process like this. If you're "RIGHT", then why not just write your own 3.5 derivative system?
Just to nitpick a little -- in Mutants & Masterminds, the Defense bonus is a combination of dodging and resisting attacks, just like in D&D (by default, half is a dodge bonus and half isn't). I don't know about True20, though.
Well it does represent your ability to resist attack, whether by dodging, parying or other possible ways, but toughness represent your ability to resist DAMAGE from an attack, to resist the actual injury. It represents better the fact that someone could be quite slow and not be good at dodging while being able to withstand tremendous amount of physical punishment. Of course toughness applies to all kind of damages not just physical (melee or ranged) attacks.
I mean you can have a guy who is easy to hit (low AC) but difficult to injure (high DR). In the case of magic attack (spells), this would still look like touch AC and ignore armor DR, so not much changes. Except it scales a little with level.
In the end, I don't personnaly think the touch AC is such a problem. Most magical attack simply disreagard armor completly anyway, instead allowing for a different form of 'protection' (saving throws, spell resistance).
Touch AC should be:
10 + 1/2 level + regular bonusesDiscuss.
No.
Those flat level bonuses are one of the many things I don't like in 4e, and Pathfinder should be free of that sort of design.
|
|
Your response to my post seemed pretty miffed, but just because you say "I think this SHOULD, I think that SHOULD" doesn't make it universally accepted...
Sorry, it did come off a little aggro. Ripe was meant as in "Ready to be picked from the tree". :)
What does BAB represent?
The ability to damage your opponent. Armor for instance makes it more difficult for your opponent to damage you by lowering their chances to hit you.
You have a valid point in that why have your BAB go up if its bonus is only going to be mitigated by a level increased touch AC bonus. The only problem I see is that at low level it is a "5 or better to hit" and that quickly becomes a "1 or better" but you always miss on a "1". Why even have an attack roll in these cases? I think this is an example of the rules not being implemented well.
Another option similar to savage worlds is that you simply get +2 (or some other bonus, +4??) to make a touch attack. That way there is no need to deal with another figured stat. I actually like this change better. While we are at it, flat footed could go too and just grant +4 to hit. Simple and don't need to do any figured stats. I think this would be the best way to implement the intended feel of the rule and still give the creatures at the upper levels a fighting chance to not get hit.
Lets do a little math:
AC 35 critter
+10 BAB +4 touch bonus +5 dex = +19 they would still need a 16 to hit.
How does this rule sit? No longer is wraithstrike the uber spell. No longer are the orb spells and rays auto hits.
The point of touch attacks is to make single target effects viable. Your change negates that. Wraithstrike is still a single target effect (attacking) and hitting touch AC means doing enough damage to matter via PA.
A T: Your suggestions about flat bonuses sound more viable. I'm not really sure about the Touch AC one (since Armor can vary from cloth to Full Plate + Natural Armor), but simplifying Flat Foot could be good. I would work on clarifying this and coming up with good reasoning to share when this chapter comes up.
I don't think much else mechanic-wise needs to change. As much as I'd hate it's effect on my characters, I don't know why Armor/Encumb. Penalty doesn't apply to Reflex Saves... (Though I wish lowering your Armor's Penalty thru MW or Armor Trainig would also lower it's Somatic Arcane Failure %)
|
|
A T: Your suggestions about flat bonuses sound more viable. I'm not really sure about the Touch AC one (since Armor can vary from cloth to Full Plate + Natural Armor), but simplifying Flat Foot could be good. I would work on clarifying this and coming up with good reasoning to share when this chapter comes up.
I don't think much else mechanic-wise needs to change. As much as I'd hate it's effect on my characters, I don't know why Armor/Encumb. Penalty doesn't apply to Reflex Saves... (Though I wish lowering your Armor's Penalty thru MW or Armor Trainig would also lower it's Somatic Arcane Failure %)
I agree, touch AC with a flat bonus to hit is a bit weird, another option is to simply merge it with the the who CMB CMC thing. And then make Flatfooted +4 to hit.
I don't think it's a problem. Touch ac is low because the ones who use it have low attack bonuses.
In my game we use class defense bonus, that we don't consider to count touch attacks, too.
|
Yeah, but I basically don't think Touch AC needs to be changed itself.
I don't think Elder Dragons need a massive bonus to their Touch AC, just because they have massive HD. I mean, take a pseudo-stationary blob creature, but Gargantuan with massive HD, why should it get a Touch AC bonus if it's not even really moving? And the Dragon, it's so huge that even if it moves, SOME of it is still in you/your ray's reach, right?
If Touch AC bonuses ARE integrated with Defensive CMB, these bonuses WILL be doubly important to have, though... (well, as important as they were in 3.5)
This comment is ripe. You (I assume) believe fighters should be given enough BAB to actually wound the elder dragon, right...
Same logic. And that logic is D&D.
BAB is a function of AC
BAB is a function of Touch ACBAB is increases by level
AC is static but highly augmentable
Touch AC is static and is virtually not augmentableAC should remain the same.
Touch should go up. Like BAB your base line offense this is your base line defense. Both should go up. Again AC should remain unchanged but your touch should increase. I would even be a fan of saying if you touch is higher than your standard AC then you can use your touch (think monk).
I don't see the logic in this. Regular AC should remain the same but Touch AC should add a level bonus. So, what you are saying is, that during regular combat ones experience in combat should not apply, but if someone is trying to touch you, your experience should apply.
I do not see the logic in that. If you want to add a level modifier to AC then that modifier needs to be applied to all AC types.
Now you said Touch AC "should go up." Please give me reasons why it should. Just saying it should is not worth anything. Why should it?
You also said that Touch AC does not go up. That is not true at all. Touch AC is modified by your Size Modifier, Dexterity Modifier, and Deflection Bonus. Dex Modifier and Deflection Bonus is very likely to go up, even with just a few spells, and many items do so as well. If you want your Touch AC increased have your spellcasters prepare spells specifically to do so. Look around for items that will do so.
So far, the only hing I have seen to justify the level bonus is because you think it should. No reason why, just you think so. Now, I know for a fact that Touch AC is just as easily modifiable as any other stat, so my first thought that is a player just wants to be lazy and have everything handed to him without any effort and to make sure he has no weaknesses (ie munchkin).
So, please, in a civil nature, explain the logic of why a level adjustment should be applied to Touch AC only, and how Touch AC is not augmentable.
I agree, touch AC with a flat bonus to hit is a bit weird, another option is to simply merge it with the the who CMB CMC thing. And then make Flatfooted +4 to hit.
Well, like I said, all Touch AC bonuses should apply to Defensive CMB - making them doubly important to have - although this is just the same importance they had in 3.5. Completely merging Touch/CMB still runs into the problem of high level, Colossal, but non-mobile or too large to move out of the way creatures becoming incredibly hard to hit with a Touch Attack or Ray, even though they should be really EASY to hit with a Touch Attack, since there's so much of them to touch, and they can't dodge effectively.
In line with this, actually, Touch AC should probably be modified by Size in line with how BAB is, i.e. Small increases it (harder to touch small creature, like a rat), Large decreases (easier to touch a big creature, like Jabba the Hut). This is sort of a conundrum for CMB/Defensive CMB: A person is much larger & stronge is fairly easy, but how to account for the fact that the rat's size gr than a rat, so if they can get hold of a rat, "grappling/pinning" itives it an advantage in evading the grapple to begin with? This is a problem with the simplification that CMB has done. I'm not sure exactly how to resolve it.
Edit: Actually, I realized since Small creatures have higher DEX, and Large ones have lower DEX, it would be already accounted for, somewhat, as long as all the Touch AC bonuses apply to Defensive CMB/ DMB. This makes me think there should be a rule if you 'corner' someone or otherwise get them against a wall, etc, they should count as 'Flanked', giving you +2 to hit... (that being the best way to catch a rat...)
|
|
I like the idea of a "Touch AC only" feat, it fits in with Defensive Combat Training. But +4 might be a bit high, as there are a lot of touch effects in the game. Plus, being a dodge bonus it is going to stack (such as with Dodge).
I would suggest +2. Maybe go the Dodge route and bump to +4 with 10 ranks in Acrobatics.
The other feat I would like to see:
Shield Arm
Prerequisite: Shield Proficiency, Improved Shield Bash.
Benefit: You apply any shield bonus you possess to your touch AC. You lose the benefit of this feat if you are flat-footed or unconscious.
|
|
I'll just add in my 5 cents as well with the "please don't touch Touch AC" comment.
For pretty much all of the reasons already stated by the pro-touch AC crowd, I too agree that the mechanism does not need to change, and absolutely should not change.
Jal Dorak's suggestions of feats that improve touch AC (especially those that involve shields) would be a far better place to put any kind of "improvements" to the system.
|
|
Hence my statement of good and bad. You'd be surprised how quickly those HPs disappear under 9d6 blasts every round though. I suppose the fighters helped with that too.
well that a prob with warlocks not Touch AC, never had one in my games and prob never will, but for all the wizards and soc that dont get unlimited 9d6 dmg leave Touch AC alone.
Wait. Stop. People are still thinking a piddly little 9d6 a round at high levels is good? Are your characters never upgrading their equipment from a plain level 1 club? Are you looking at enemy stats in the CR 11-19 range?
It's not about the gor-am warlock!!!!
Ok, I think we've provided reasons why touch ac is a problem. If you like, haven't be reading the thread or something, let me spell it out.
1. At high levels, especially for high-dex wizards, or simply against larger lower-dex creatures, touch AC becomes virtually impossible to miss.
2. While it's true that there are many buffs that can do something to raise your touch AC, there are equally many, if not more, buffs that can raise your attack bonus that you will be applying to touch attacks. If my fighter grabs a +6 belt of dexterity, the wizard can do the same, the items cancel each other out, basically. A +5 ring of deflection is your best defense, but only partially makes up for base attack bonus and large amounts of attack buffs at later levels, things like haste, prayer, bard's song, etc, etc, will easily make up that +5.
3. Many of the touch attacks have no save, and are simply devestatingly effective. No, I am not talking about 9d6 damage at 17th level. I am talking about things like 17d6-maximized damage at 17th level with spells like fire seeds that allow no save or SR. I am talking about a maximized 1d6+5 strength penalty at 10th level. 11 pts of str will cripple any "bruiser/basher" monster. I am talking about Otto's Irrisistable Dance, or a maxed-empowered enervation to deal 6 negative levels, and then doing the same again on the next turn.
4. One way to fix this would be to give many of these effects a save. Another way to do it would be to raise touch AC somehow.
are we crystal?
102 damage with a 9th level spell = weak. It's fire damage too. That's even worse.
An 11 Strength penalty for a 4th level spell is better, but most likely just means the enemy PAs for a lower number.
Maximized Empowered Enervation is 1: A 9th level spell. 2: 1d2+4 negative levels. Still not a big deal.
Touch attacks represent a way to get a weaker effect through reliably. The stronger effects allow saves. Boosting touch AC defeats the purpose.
|
|
Yes, but the system has rules in place to allow players the option to cover up all other weaknesses, EXCEPT for touch AC. Spellcasters know this, and it has become an exploit.
If the maximized fire seeds isn't enough, how about an 11th-level Wizard with a metamagic rod of maximize (or even better, a PRPG Universalist with maximize 1/day) firing a disintegrate. Thats a 6th-level spell for 132 damage (save for 30!).
I'll throw in that later books also gave spellcasters the ability to take Weapon Focus and such with their spells, which improved touch attacks even further.
Maybe the best solution is just not allow spellcasters to use Precise Shot with rays.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
Yes, but the system has rules in place to allow players the option to cover up all other weaknesses, EXCEPT for touch AC. Spellcasters know this, and it has become an exploit.
If the maximized fire seeds isn't enough, how about an 11th-level Wizard with a metamagic rod of maximize (or even better, a PRPG Universalist with maximize 1/day) firing a disintegrate. Thats a 6th-level spell for 132 damage (save for half!).
I'll throw in that later books also gave spellcasters the ability to take Weapon Focus and such with their spells, which improved touch attacks even further.
Maybe the best solution is just not allow spellcasters to use Precise Shot with rays.
A couple of points. First of all, disintegrate doesn't do half damage on a save, it does 5d6, no matter what the caster level is. Even a maximized disintegrate only does 30 damage on a save. Plus, this spell requires both a ranged touch attack AND a saving throw, so it's not really a good example in the first place about touch AC, since that's an additional hoop the caster needs to go through.
As mentioned earlier in the thread, there are lots of ways to cover up touch AC, just not as many as standard AC, which is as it should be, since it should be easier to touch vs. penetrate armor, even with enhancements.
As for the use of Precise shot, I think that can completely stay useable with rays, since it requires a 2 feat investment for the caster (point blank shot, then precise.) If the caster would rather do that instead of additional metamagic, spell focus, spell penetration, let them.
Finally, with ranged touch attacks, not only is their the -4 to fire into melee that precise shot eliminates, but there's also cover. If you're firing into melee past an ally (or even another enemy), your target gets cover from them, providing another -4. This is a little used rule, but that just means it should get used more often instead of complaining that touch AC is too low.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Untouchable
Prerequisites: Dex 13, Dodge
Benefit: You gain a +4 Dodge bonus to AC against all Touch attacks.This gives players who think Touch AC is a major problem another option to improve it, without affecting game balance or backwards compatability. I don't think changing the base mechanics for Touch attacks is necessary or advisable.
I think Touch attacks are fine, though I like this feat.
|
|
Your post is entirely correct. I don't know why I thought disintegrate was Fort half, but 132/30 is still decent. Even un-maximized the average damage 77. I've edited my post to spruce up my argument.
Very astute in pointing out soft cover. I usually find Precise Shot a good choice for my casters, especially humans. But overall a -8 to attack rolls does tend to negate some of the sting of rays. But that doesn't help melee touch attacks, but more often those have saving throws.
Yes, but the system has rules in place to allow players the option to cover up all other weaknesses, EXCEPT for touch AC. Spellcasters know this, and it has become an exploit.
If the maximized fire seeds isn't enough, how about an 11th-level Wizard with a metamagic rod of maximize (or even better, a PRPG Universalist with maximize 1/day) firing a disintegrate. Thats a 6th-level spell for 132 damage (save for 30!).
I'll throw in that later books also gave spellcasters the ability to take Weapon Focus and such with their spells, which improved touch attacks even further.
Maybe the best solution is just not allow spellcasters to use Precise Shot with rays.
132 at level 11 is better. You're still reliant on enemies failing Fortitude saves.
CR 11: Enemies average Fortitude saves over 3 points higher than either of the other two.
CR 12: Enemies average Fortitude saves over 6 points higher (!).
CR 13: Enemy Fortitude saves about 1.7 points higher than the next highest.
CR 14: Enemy Fortitude saves nearly two points higher to next highest.
CR 15: Enemy Fortitude saves actually aren't the highest. Too bad it's only by a margin of 0.05.
CR 16: Enemy Fortitude saves are highest again. It's only by half a point this time.
Then you keep going and it's either roughly tied for the highest, or 3 or more points higher at all non epic levels.
Not being able to Precise Shot rays (for those willing to blow 2 feats on that) just means the ray wizard's party is a liability to him. Or he'll just shoot at whatever hasn't been bumrushed yet.
Lastly, Weapon Focus is a trap. Especially for casters.
Touch attacks are specifically made a weak point so that lesser, reliable effects can be introduced without pulling a Magic Missile. That way you can take the sure thing and do a little, or take a risk and do more. This is bad why, exactly?
Direct comparison: Ray of Dizziness vs Slow. Both of these effects cause the Slowed status for 1 round/level. Both are level 3. Here is where they diverge. Slow affects one creature per level, as long as no two are more than 30 feet apart. It is a Transmutation effect. It allows a Will save to negate. Ray of Dizziness affects a single target. Period. It is delivered as a ranged touch attack with no saving throw. It is an Enchantment (Compulsion, Mind Affecting) effect. Both allow Spell Resistance to apply. In addition, Slow reduces speed by half. Ray of Dizziness does not. So you have one effect assured of working as long as it hits, but only affects one thing and not even as well compared to another that can affect many things but may actually affect all or none of them, or anywhere in between. Also, the only way to deal with the Slow spell is with Haste. The ray is defeated by that and common immunities.
If anything, the riskless nature of it tends to make developers err on the side of making it underpowered. It makes good wand material though, which is more than can be said of any spell with a saving throw.
Shield Ward. Ghost Ward. The PHB2 and the MIC are ahead of you.
The main problem I see is the ridiculously low touch ACs of nearly all monsters. Once you reach 15th+, your Warlock with his infinite touch attack eldritch blasts has little problem dealing with most bad guys. At times it is a good thing, at times it is bad. I would just like to see it actually become contested rather than the only-miss-on-a-one way it is now.
What is this "Warlock" with "Eldrich Blast" that you speak of? :/
The main problem I see is the ridiculously low touch ACs of nearly all monsters. Once you reach 15th+, your Warlock with his infinite touch attack eldritch blasts has little problem dealing with most bad guys. At times it is a good thing, at times it is bad. I would just like to see it actually become contested rather than the only-miss-on-a-one way it is now.What is this "Warlock" with "Eldrich Blast" that you speak of? :/
A non core class that gets knee jerk replies of broken from those that don't know any better simply because they see the word at will, but actually is slightly underpowered even when optimized heavily (and pretty lackluster out of the box).
Think of them as a weak archer with a few random tricks, because that's what they are.
A non core class that gets knee jerk replies of broken from those that don't know any better simply because they see the word at will, but actually is slightly underpowered even when optimized heavily (and pretty lackluster out of the box).
Think of them as a weak archer with a few random tricks, because that's what they are.
But, that is my point.
Currently the PathfinderRPG (where this thread is located) only knows of the Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, and Wizard.
So, when looking at a "core" mechanic, shouldn't "core" classes be the primary focus of the discussion?
Crusader, do you have a thick encyclopedia chocked full of D&D gonkulated stats, like a baseball junkie? :) I just wonder how you get all your precise statistics!
IMO, touch attacks and touch AC are fine as printed. Its a logical system (easier to simply touch someone than try to land a telling blow with a weapon). If there's any problem, as many have pointed out, its that there are a few spells spell/combinations that exploit it. The proper fix is not to rewrite touch AC, but to adjust those spells with limits, saves or make them regular attacks.
The problem is identifying all of those potential cominations is near impossible, given the open and expansive nature of 3e D&D. The base rule is fine - the effects exploiting it are broke (if at all).
Ahem. Not to interrupt the Contest of Human Encyclopedias of Splat Books,
but I wanted to comment a suggestion you made a few posts back, Jal:
what would you think of a Feat "Can't Touch This" that applied a bonus to BOTH Defensive CMB AND Touch AC? (Instead of the Defensive Maneuver Feat, or expanding it) If Touch AC bonus == Defensive CMB bonus, then this would be a logical extension...?
Crusader, do you have a thick encyclopedia chocked full of D&D gonkulated stats, like a baseball junkie? :) I just wonder how you get all your precise statistics!
IMO, touch attacks and touch AC are fine as printed. Its a logical system (easier to simply touch someone than try to land a telling blow with a weapon). If there's any problem, as many have pointed out, its that there are a few spells spell/combinations that exploit it. The proper fix is not to rewrite touch AC, but to adjust those spells with limits, saves or make them regular attacks.
The problem is identifying all of those potential cominations is near impossible, given the open and expansive nature of 3e D&D. The base rule is fine - the effects exploiting it are broke (if at all).
No. I just know how to access the Character Optimization boards, where those more intelligent than myself have already written guides to that effect. I've only really used two of them here - Optimization by the Numbers (average enemy stats at every level) and Tier System for Classes (the principles of viability, and how to make your stuff fit into that).
Often, the guide isn't even necessary as even a cursory look at whatever bits are relevant is enough to get the point. For example, you don't have to look at every single monster entry to figure out enemy HP is scaling faster than 3.5/level, and that it scales faster at higher levels because it is quadratic.