Armor quality Fortification - too cheap?

[JoelF847]

I know that anytime I play a fighter type I buy heavy fortification for my armor or shield as soon as it's affordable at mid levels. Even though it's a +5 ability, for armor that's not a huge expense. You can have a suit of +1 heavy fortification for 36K plus the cost of the armor. That's really cheap for complete immunity to critical hits and sneak attacks. Yes, you sacrifice +4 to AC, but not taking that power attack critical hit from a giant or high level fighter is worth it IMO.

I'm not sure what the best fix is, but have two suggestions.

1) keep the pricing the same, but change light/medium/heavy fortification to 25%/50%/75% protection only. Don't allow 100% protection at all (maybe under epic rules.)
2) keep the effects the same, but increase the price to +2/+4/+6 abilities or higher even.

[Eric Tillemans]

JoelF847 wrote:

1) keep the pricing the same, but change light/medium/heavy fortification to 25%/50%/75% protection only. Don't allow 100% protection at all (maybe under epic rules.)

I agree with you it needs some sort of adjustment and I like option 1.

[Jason Bulmahn]

I have been considering removing the 100% option (by moving it to 75%) for a while now. I am not a fan of absolutes.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

[Darwin]

Eric Tillemans wrote:

JoelF847 wrote:

1) keep the pricing the same, but change light/medium/heavy fortification to 25%/50%/75% protection only. Don't allow 100% protection at all (maybe under epic rules.)

I agree with you it needs some sort of adjustment and I like option 1.

For that matter, are 3 levels of fortification really necessary? 25% doesn't seem very useful at all.

[tasslehoff220]

As a GM I disagree. I think Heavy Fortification is exactly where it needs to be. I like 100% because it means less rolling and thus combat get bogged down less. Also, assuming you negate half the damage taken 10% of the time (monsters usually have 20 only criticals), it is no more powerful than DR 3/- granted by adamantine full plate if the fighter takes no more than 60 damage per swing.

Math: 10% of the time avoid half damage equals avoioding 5% damage. 5% of 60 is 3. DR 3/- gets better when things aren't swinging 60/swing.

Next, yes, it will let you prevent more damage from sneak attackers but unless you fight them all the time (which would make you game a-typical and not what we should base the power of the item around) then making the ability for math's sake prevent 2 times the damage is more than generous. This makes it just equivalent to dr 3/- when you take an average of 30 per swing.

Thus unless you think adamantine armor is over powered it should be considered fine. I really have always liked this enhancement. I like the way it levels and can be made better, despite doing essentially the same thing, as you level up. I think it a good baseline for the power of other abilities.

JoelF847 wrote:

I know that anytime I play a fighter type I buy heavy fortification for my armor or shield as soon as it's affordable at mid levels. Even though it's a +5 ability, for armor that's not a huge expense. You can have a suit of +1 heavy fortification for 36K plus the cost of the armor. That's really cheap for complete immunity to critical hits and sneak attacks. Yes, you sacrifice +4 to AC, but not taking that power attack critical hit from a giant or high level fighter is worth it IMO.

I'm not sure what the best fix is, but have two suggestions.

1) keep the pricing the same, but change light/medium/heavy fortification to 25%/50%/75% protection only. Don't allow 100% protection at all (maybe under epic rules.)
2) keep the effects the same, but increase the price to +2/+4/+6 abilities or higher even.

[JoelF847]

tasslehoff220 wrote:

As a GM I disagree. I think Heavy Fortification is exactly where it needs to be. I like 100% because it means less rolling and thus combat get bogged down less. Also, assuming you negate half the damage taken 10% of the time (monsters usually have 20 only criticals), it is no more powerful than DR 3/- granted by adamantine full plate if the fighter takes no more than 60 damage per swing.

Math: 10% of the time avoid half damage equals avoioding 5% damage. 5% of 60 is 3. DR 3/- gets better when things aren't swinging 60/swing.

Next, yes, it will let you prevent more damage from sneak attackers but unless you fight them all the time (which would make you game a-typical and not what we should base the power of the item around) then making the ability for math's sake prevent 2 times the damage is more than generous. This makes it just equivalent to dr 3/- when you take an average of 30 per swing.

Thus unless you think adamantine armor is over powered it should be considered fine. I really have always liked this enhancement. I like the way it levels and can be made better, despite doing essentially the same thing, as you level up. I think it a good baseline for the power of other abilities.

It's not about average damage stopped. It's about stopping the character killing 80+ hp that a single power attacking critical can do, even at mid levels. And while most base monsters only crit on a 20, it's not unusual to have monsters/NPCs with class levels that a) use weapons that crit more often, or b) have keen attacks or the improved crit feat.

[tasslehoff220]

JoelF847 wrote:

It's not about average damage stopped. It's about stopping the character killing 80+ hp that a single power attacking critical can do, even at mid levels. And while most base monsters only crit on a 20, it's not unusual to have monsters/NPCs with class levels that a) use weapons that crit more often, or b) have keen attacks or the improved crit feat.

I agree that its not just about average damage stopped. Otherwise it would not be worth it but average damage stopped is a decent way to benchmark it to determine it's actual power. Also you must keep in mind that pathfinder has attempted to get rid of things which instantly kill with one roll. Negating criticals seems along those lines especially when you consider how many of the versions of the base classes get that kind of ability.

Second, while you are right that monsters often have higher crit ranges than just 20, this was just random ballparking. I did not take into account that the monster or PC will usually have to roll to confirm, which lowers the chance to hit and thus the average damage prevented. Also most monsters do not have a higher crit range so this wouldn't change the stats much if at all. So while you are right that there are ways for monsters to raise their crit range it shouldnt change that statistics I have created much if at all.

[Quandary]

I agree that it's not problematically powerful right now...

*IF* it's to be reduced to 75% max (I'm not advocating this per se),
I feel it should be reduced to 2 Tiers, with the first starting ~40%.
25% is just too low: I would NEVER purchase/create Light Fortification Armor. Even if 3 Tiers are to be retained with the maximum at 100%, I feel the first tier needs to start out high enough to be signifigant. To be blunt, rolling for 25% chances doesn't provide enough motivation to want to roll an extra dice each hit(Crit).

On that tip, if streamlining game-play is important, it could be worth-while to change how Fortification works: Instead of rolling a separate "Crit Immunity Chance", it could grant a signifigant penalty to Crit Confirms (say, maxing at -30 to -40, as well as forcing Confirms if abilities otherwise allow a free Confirm. This keeps the numbers of rolls to a minimum, while achieving 99% the same effect.

[Straybow]

I don't see a problem with 100% for heavy fortification, especially if the cost is bumped up. And I agree that a drastic reduction for lighter versions would be nearly worthless. 50/75/100 for +2/+4/+6 would be reasonable. I would make a requirement that 75% fortification must include a helmet, and 100% a full helm. If removed, fortification drops 25%.

[Christopher Walker]

I personally think that fortification weakens the Rogue at high levels. This is true so much that it often appears on common guard. Yes it is a lot of treasure, but that is balanced out with other things. I don't like the 100% and I don't like the cheep cost.

[Abraham spalding]

I've not seen a common guard with fortification, and generally I don't run across too many rogues at higher levels either, but that could just be the groups I've played with. Generally I see players grabbing fortification becuase they are tired of getting crit'ed for 70+ points of damage. Most people in my area tend to stop at medium fortification to keep costs down, seeing 75% as a good enough amount.

[Asgetrion]

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

I have been considering removing the 100% option (by moving it to 75%) for a while now. I am not a fan of absolutes.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

I think that is an excellent choice -- total immunity to crits would make PCs way too powerful (esp. in the contenxt of the SA/crit immunity revision that is going to take place in the final rules). As it stands now, I can't fathom why all the "melee" wouldn't pick a magical armor with Heavy Fortification.

[Beckett]

I'd suggest having Crit and Sneak Attack being a little different. I did this in an older game a few years ago, because I didn't like my group being 100% immune.

I made it

--------Crit Immunity----Sneak Attck
Light----------25%-------------40%
Medium-------50%-------------60%
Heavy---------75%-------------90%

Sneak attack is higher, (has a less chance of working), because sneak attack is easier to achieve, while a crit is mostly a random occurance.

[Ughbash]

Beckett wrote:

I'd suggest having Crit and Sneak Attack being a little different. I did this in an older game a few years ago, because I didn't like my group being 100% immune.

I made it

--------Crit Immunity----Sneak Attck
Light----------25%-------------40%
Medium-------50%-------------60%
Heavy---------75%-------------90%

Sneak attack is higher, (has a less chance of working), because sneak attack is easier to achieve, while a crit is mostly a random occurance.

On the other had ANYONE can get a crit, it takes specialized training to get sneak attack, so I would give Sneak attack a better chance. People defend against the common more so then the rare. With that said when I ran an Epic game, I allowed an epic feat (which required 21 levels in SA classes) that reduced fortitude by 25% for sneak attack purposes.

[Matthew Morris]

Strange,

If I'm playing a gish, foritfication is a high priotity for me, I'll happily take 25% for a +1 bonus, especially if the DM allows me to jsut pay the plus difference to get it up to the better fortification at higher levels. (I'm old fashioned, I like my gear to be the same stuff I've had, it's just gotten better)

One in four chance of crit negation? Yes please. It's like saying "I don't like blur, because the miss chance is only 20%"

Count me in for the 25%/50%/75% +1/+3/+5 catagory.

[Akasharose]

JoelF847 wrote:

I know that anytime I play a fighter type I buy heavy fortification for my armor or shield as soon as it's affordable at mid levels. Even though it's a +5 ability, for armor that's not a huge expense. You can have a suit of +1 heavy fortification for 36K plus the cost of the armor. That's really cheap for complete immunity to critical hits and sneak attacks. Yes, you sacrifice +4 to AC, but not taking that power attack critical hit from a giant or high level fighter is worth it IMO.

I'm not sure what the best fix is, but have two suggestions.

1) keep the pricing the same, but change light/medium/heavy fortification to 25%/50%/75% protection only. Don't allow 100% protection at all (maybe under epic rules.)
2) keep the effects the same, but increase the price to +2/+4/+6 abilities or higher even.

I thought about all the input here .. some good thoughts really. But finally decided that as a GM I would not make any changes .. AND that your GM is giving you too much treasure.

I'm GMing 2 different groups right now where each character has a total of 7 to 9 levels, and none has yet to have 36K per character to spend (at least not without selling off some of their other "No way am I giving up this" item) and they have never pooled money toward one character for a significant expense (with the exception of Raise Dead costs) ...

Also, by the time they CAN afford 36K each, I'll be attacking them with creatures such as hasted 12th level fighters (so 4 attacks per round, 2 at top Base Attack - tack on Power attack, enhanced strength, enchanted weapons, magic support, etc.), so I won't care if they negate my criticals ....

As a player I was always more inclined to look toward Displacement items like Cloak of Minor Displacement for 24K with a 20% chance of negating ALL of each and every hit, not just the critical/sneak damage ... and if they critical .. well x2/x3/x4 times 0 = 0, if the displacement worked.

I also liked the comment regarding the power of Damage Reduction ... if the reduction is taken into account before you do the critical multiplier this makes those small DR items worth a second look.

Ta for now

[JoelF847]

Akasharose wrote:

JoelF847 wrote:

I know that anytime I play a fighter type I buy heavy fortification for my armor or shield as soon as it's affordable at mid levels. Even though it's a +5 ability, for armor that's not a huge expense. You can have a suit of +1 heavy fortification for 36K plus the cost of the armor. That's really cheap for complete immunity to critical hits and sneak attacks. Yes, you sacrifice +4 to AC, but not taking that power attack critical hit from a giant or high level fighter is worth it IMO.

I'm not sure what the best fix is, but have two suggestions.

1) keep the pricing the same, but change light/medium/heavy fortification to 25%/50%/75% protection only. Don't allow 100% protection at all (maybe under epic rules.)
2) keep the effects the same, but increase the price to +2/+4/+6 abilities or higher even.

I thought about all the input here .. some good thoughts really. But finally decided that as a GM I would not make any changes .. AND that your GM is giving you too much treasure.

I'm GMing 2 different groups right now where each character has a total of 7 to 9 levels, and none has yet to have 36K per character to spend (at least not without selling off some of their other "No way am I giving up this" item) and they have never pooled money toward one character for a significant expense (with the exception of Raise Dead costs) ...

Also, by the time they CAN afford 36K each, I'll be attacking them with creatures such as hasted 12th level fighters (so 4 attacks per round, 2 at top Base Attack - tack on Power attack, enhanced strength, enchanted weapons, magic support, etc.), so I won't care if they negate my criticals ....

The difference is that I was playing in a game for 14-18th level at the time I had the hvy fort armor. The treasure was based on the PC wealth by level guidelines, so that wasn't the issue.