I'm pretty sure they said they are getting rid of touch ac as we know it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd be sad, it's something that is very 3E/PF, it makes sense too. Making some sense from DnD's weird AC system.
As Vidmaster notes, it almost certainly wont be present as we currently know it, sense even spell casters will have full "BAB". Everyone has full BAB, and proficiency is merely a bonus to hit that scales (slowly).
So yes, there is no need to for touch AC.
And unlike Starfinder where many weapon deal energy damage instead of just physical damage, we wont have that situation in PF2 so I doubt they'll implement a KAC/EAC system either (though I don't have much of a problem with that system either, except generally speaking KAC is always about 2 points above EAC and though physical weapons tend to deal more damage the extra difficulty to hit is annoying).
From the Fighter Class Preview, Monday, March 19, 2018
"To recap, you take an action to raise your shield and get its Armor Class and touch Armor Class bonuses"
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like touch AC. I think it could do with a rework, but I think it adds quite a bit to the game without too much added complexity.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like touch AC. It should be easier to gently tag a barn-sized creature than it is to penetrate its scales and hide.
I really don't want dragons "ninja flipping" out of the way of attacks.
Now, if you want to argue that some attacks that are currently touch attacks shouldn't be touches, there's a position I think has some wiggle room.
I have read that armor will add some to touch AC as well. That may fix it.
With heavy armor and shields giving you a bit of touch AC, and with things that resolve against it being balanced for their easier to-hit, I think we’re okay.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It always bothered me that touch AC ignores armor anyway. Sure, touch my plate with that hand that's on fire... you'll slightly heat up the metal, and I'll still be fine (especially given all the padding between my skin and the armor). There's no reason armor shouldn't protect against touch attacks any more than it does against other forms of attack.
That argument has merit for things like a hand on fire, but less so for attacks that are basically laser pointers.
1: may I ask for some context for what's going on with this? I mean I don't keep up with 2e so I don't know what yall mean by half babs getting basically full bab.
It always bothered me that touch AC ignores armor anyway. Sure, touch my plate with that hand that's on fire... you'll slightly heat up the metal, and I'll still be fine (especially given all the padding between my skin and the armor). There's no reason armor shouldn't protect against touch attacks any more than it does against other forms of attack.That argument has merit for things like a hand on fire, but less so for attacks that are basically laser pointers.
2: I always just assumed the touch attack thing was more just "you are channeling pure magic into something, and getting shot with what is basically a laser beam made of fire your armor is not going to protect you all that much from the pure convective heat of 4d6 heated pain. And the same with the convection of cold. I mean I will admit that there's an extent to which it doesn't make sense for some things, but I just assumed it just played magic as the unstoppable force
I'd be sad, it's something that is very 3E/PF, it makes sense too. Making some sense from DnD's weird AC system.
I've got mixes feelings myself. Touch served its purpose for casters and was evocative of ghost and other incorporeal beings. Paizo screwed the pouch with Alchemists and gunslingers, though and made a mess of it. Like other problems paizo exasperated. they are now designing the issues completely out of the system. That means losing some cool ideas but dems da breaks in new editions.
I stand corrected. Sounds like the problems will continue.
Have we actually seen anything implying Proficiency will also be added to AC?
One thing worth noting: Buhlman has hinted that they have some big plans for magic armor in this game, and I think he was implying that there's a change on the level of what we saw with +1 weapons. So there's a lot of wiggle room for both AC and touch AC right now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think a more 'natural' correction would be to make all 'AC' Touch-AC. The attack roll determines if you HIT (as contact) your target. Dexterity, dodging, and shield improve this. Then, once you hit, the effects are limited by the armor between you and your target.
Essentially, Armor-as-DR optional rules - in spirit, not necessarily in math.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Things that are very bad at penetrating armour should probably have to beat the normal AC. That includes lasers, btw.It always bothered me that touch AC ignores armor anyway. Sure, touch my plate with that hand that's on fire... you'll slightly heat up the metal, and I'll still be fine (especially given all the padding between my skin and the armor). There's no reason armor shouldn't protect against touch attacks any more than it does against other forms of attack.That argument has merit for things like a hand on fire, but less so for attacks that are basically laser pointers.
But not effects like ray of enfeeblement or enervation. Bestow curse and inflict-type spells also shouldn't care about armor, unless you decide they actually have to touch exposed skin, in which case normal clothes should give nearly as much protection as armor. Most players I know would much rather have disintegrate hit their PC's hp rather than poof the armor off their body, costing them thousands to repair/replace it as well.
There are a lot of effects that really do only need to make the barest "tag" contact with a target's physical form or equipment, and those effects need to be touch attacks. I also use touch AC when narrating attacks as a GM - an attack which hits touch AC but misses normal AC I might describe as "deflected by the foe's shield, or doesn't penetrate their tough hide, or spangs off their armor;" whereas if they miss even the touch AC I'll note that the "attack didn't even touch them" which gives alert players clues about the stats of the critter they're fighting.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Things that are very bad at penetrating armour should probably have to beat the normal AC. That includes lasers, btw.It always bothered me that touch AC ignores armor anyway. Sure, touch my plate with that hand that's on fire... you'll slightly heat up the metal, and I'll still be fine (especially given all the padding between my skin and the armor). There's no reason armor shouldn't protect against touch attacks any more than it does against other forms of attack.That argument has merit for things like a hand on fire, but less so for attacks that are basically laser pointers.But not effects like ray of enfeeblement or enervation. Bestow curse and inflict-type spells also shouldn't care about armor, unless you decide they actually have to touch exposed skin, in which case normal clothes should give nearly as much protection as armor. Most players I know would much rather have disintegrate hit their PC's hp rather than poof the armor off their body, costing them thousands to repair/replace it as well.
There are a lot of effects that really do only need to make the barest "tag" contact with a target's physical form or equipment, and those effects need to be touch attacks. I also use touch AC when narrating attacks as a GM - an attack which hits touch AC but misses normal AC I might describe as "deflected by the foe's shield, or doesn't penetrate their tough hide, or spangs off their armor;" whereas if they miss even the touch AC I'll note that the "attack didn't even touch them" which gives alert players clues about the stats of the critter they're fighting.
Exactly. For narrative purposes as a DM it's important as well as adding mechanical realism...of sorts. ;)
Touch AC has been confirmed as normal AC -2.
It was on one of the most recent playtest sessions, the one that took place in Reno Nevada.
So that means that touch AC as we know it is gone. And whether your AC derives from DEX and dodging, or from a restricting suit of plate armor, the net result on your touch AC will be the same.
It almost seems like they should call it by a different name.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Touch AC has been confirmed as normal AC -2.
It was on one of the most recent playtest sessions, the one that took place in Reno Nevada.
So that means that touch AC as we know it is gone. And whether your AC derives from DEX and dodging, or from a restricting suit of plate armor, the net result on your touch AC will be the same.
It almost seems like they should call it by a different name.
If true, I'm going to pick on that during the playtest a lot. I really don't like huge dragons or the Tarrasque Matrix-twisting around attacks just because they have tough scales.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Touch AC has been confirmed as normal AC -2.
It was on one of the most recent playtest sessions, the one that took place in Reno Nevada.
So that means that touch AC as we know it is gone. And whether your AC derives from DEX and dodging, or from a restricting suit of plate armor, the net result on your touch AC will be the same.
It almost seems like they should call it by a different name.
You got a link to that? That’s sounding like flat-footed, and doesn’t really mesh with some stuff we’ve heard about touch AC being easier to crit against (since by level 7, you can craft a weapon with +2 to hit and touch stuff generally lacks weapon-ness).
I mean, it makes sense balance-wise, so I’m not too surprised.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
If true, I'm going to pick on that during the playtest a lot. I really don't like huge dragons or the Tarrasque Matrix-twisting around attacks just because they have tough scales.Touch AC has been confirmed as normal AC -2.
It was on one of the most recent playtest sessions, the one that took place in Reno Nevada.
So that means that touch AC as we know it is gone. And whether your AC derives from DEX and dodging, or from a restricting suit of plate armor, the net result on your touch AC will be the same.
It almost seems like they should call it by a different name.
Phrasing issue.
They aren't evading, their scales (or a suit of Fullplate) are just so thick that the touch Attack is still partially affected
Then we lack a mechanic for attacks that really just require the lightest brush or laser pointer style targeting, i.e. actual touching.
I don't have a link, because I found the link here, then DLed it and listened while travelling. But it must be round here somewhere. It was the "Gamma" session, from Game Trade Media with Jason Buhlman as DM.
I find these live play sessions somewhat tedious, but interesting, precisely because of the tidbits and spoilers that they inevitably dole out.
Separate from the touch AC thing, I think we're in for a few surprises as Paizo re-thinks the way that it attributes AC to critters. Time will tell.
I mean, if lead blocks divination for whatever reason, it's not wholly unreasonable to say that the iron in steel interferes with curses and that people who build plate armor have figured out how to insulate the person inside while grounding the whole thing from the greaves so shocking grasps are less of an issue.
I mean, if lead blocks divination for whatever reason, it's not wholly unreasonable to say that the iron in steel interferes with curses and that people who build plate armor have figured out how to insulate the person inside while grounding the whole thing from the greaves so shocking grasps are less of an issue.
I hope not there ought to be things more effective against plate. Though if touch is only -2 AC its not much to care about.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Touch AC has been confirmed as normal AC -2.
It was on one of the most recent playtest sessions, the one that took place in Reno Nevada.
So that means that touch AC as we know it is gone. And whether your AC derives from DEX and dodging, or from a restricting suit of plate armor, the net result on your touch AC will be the same.
It almost seems like they should call it by a different name.
Touch AC has NOT been confirmed as normal AC -2.
I found the video and did a search on it; you're thinking of flat-footed AC, which they talk about at the same time. The fact that flat-footed isn't listed separately because it's just AC -2, which touch AC is listed separately is pretty good evidence that it's not just a flat modifier.
Also, I learned that there's a Chrome extension that allows you to search the captions of a YouTube video. Very handy for locating something in a two-hour playtest video!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Touch AC has been confirmed as normal AC -2.
It was on one of the most recent playtest sessions, the one that took place in Reno Nevada.
So that means that touch AC as we know it is gone. And whether your AC derives from DEX and dodging, or from a restricting suit of plate armor, the net result on your touch AC will be the same.
It almost seems like they should call it by a different name.
I am 99% certain this is incorrect. Are you sure you're not getting confused with flat-footed AC? Because Flat-footed AC has been confirmed as normal AC-2.
AFAIK, how touch AC works hasn't been revealed yet.
EDIT: Ninja'd!
I want to throw a ball of mud at someone to splatter on their armor. What AC do I use?If the target is the armor itself I would call that a reflex save
I have a question for the group: conceptually, what's the difference between attacking touch AC and forcing the target to make a reflex save? In both cases, you're testing your target's ability to avoid your attack. I really don't see a difference.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have a question for the group: conceptually, what's the difference between attacking touch AC and forcing the target to make a reflex save? In both cases, you're testing your target's ability to avoid your attack. I really don't see a difference.I want to throw a ball of mud at someone to splatter on their armor. What AC do I use?If the target is the armor itself I would call that a reflex save
Hitting touch AC requires aiming at a target. Forcing a reflex save doesn’t.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It always bothered me that touch AC ignores armor anyway. Sure, touch my plate with that hand that's on fire... you'll slightly heat up the metal, and I'll still be fine (especially given all the padding between my skin and the armor). There's no reason armor shouldn't protect against touch attacks any more than it does against other forms of attack.
I'm guessing you're referring to burning hands. Being magic, I think it's obvious that if I manage to touch you, you burn. As in, it's not nonmagical fire that react traditionally. It's magical fire that goes right through the armor to the creature underneath.
Personally I think of it sort of like conductivity... since armor and scales don't provide defense against magical touch attacks, those attacks are conducted through the armor to vulnerable flesh beneath.
Hitting touch AC requires aiming at a target. Forcing a reflex save doesn’t.I have a question for the group: conceptually, what's the difference between attacking touch AC and forcing the target to make a reflex save? In both cases, you're testing your target's ability to avoid your attack. I really don't see a difference.I want to throw a ball of mud at someone to splatter on their armor. What AC do I use?If the target is the armor itself I would call that a reflex save
I agree that is how it works in PF 1. What if Touch AC was simply 10 + Reflex Save, or maybe 10 + Acrobatics. It would be simpler to calculate and thematically similar. Of course since we don't know how AC works in PF2 with proficiency it is hard to know.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have a question for the group: conceptually, what's the difference between attacking touch AC and forcing the target to make a reflex save? In both cases, you're testing your target's ability to avoid your attack. I really don't see a difference.I want to throw a ball of mud at someone to splatter on their armor. What AC do I use?If the target is the armor itself I would call that a reflex save
I see one as active, and one as reactive. An attack targeting touch AC relies both on the attacker's skill level and the target's ability to avoid, whereas a Reflex save is the person's ability to avoid an unguided threat.
I see one as active, and one as reactive. An attack targeting touch AC relies both on the attacker's skill level and the target's ability to avoid, whereas a Reflex save is the person's ability to avoid an unguided threat.I have a question for the group: conceptually, what's the difference between attacking touch AC and forcing the target to make a reflex save? In both cases, you're testing your target's ability to avoid your attack. I really don't see a difference.I want to throw a ball of mud at someone to splatter on their armor. What AC do I use?If the target is the armor itself I would call that a reflex save
In the case of spells, say fireball, the effect is somewhat guided. The DC is determined by casters ability modifier and skill (spell focus or the like). And those factors don't affect the magnitude of damage dealt just how hard it is to avoid. So the line seems pretty blurry.
For spells the biggest difference appears to be what modifier the caster uses. So a wizards spell save DC keys of Int whereas the touch attack keys of Dex. On the defenders side they appear to be overlapping concepts that just scale differently, which is one thing PF 2 seems to be trying to avoid.
|
Touch AC exists pretty much to keep the low BAB Dex secondary wizards in line with the fighters when using rays and the like.
For damaging rays, an attack roll is fine. Especially if the wizard can use Intelligence. Spell attacks work just fine in 5e. Because it's not just hitting the creature with the scorching ray, it's penetrating their armour like any other attack. The dragon isn't dodging the ray of frost, the spell is just bouncing off its thick hide.
For other effects, a saving throw is generally better.
It always bothered me that touch AC ignores armor anyway. Sure, touch my plate with that hand that's on fire... you'll slightly heat up the metal, and I'll still be fine (especially given all the padding between my skin and the armor). There's no reason armor shouldn't protect against touch attacks any more than it does against other forms of attack.I'm guessing you're referring to burning hands. Being magic, I think it's obvious that if I manage to touch you, you burn. As in, it's not nonmagical fire that react traditionally. It's magical fire that goes right through the armor to the creature underneath.
Personally I think of it sort of like conductivity... since armor and scales don't provide defense against magical touch attacks, those attacks are conducted through the armor to vulnerable flesh beneath.
A.) But what about Mage Armor?
B.) Cool, wizard goes to his personal breeding dimension and breeds some horses that have magic insulating skin. Thankfully, only certain sections of the breeding dimension experience time, so the Wizard was able to, effectively, instantly create an infinite amount of this leather. In the 10 year gap between 1e and 2e, the leather is wide spread and most armor has this magic insulating leather, negating touch AC.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
There's also the difference that Reflex saves can be made by helpless individuals(albeit with a Dex mod of -5) and made by characters unaware of the attack.
In the fireball example, I've always visualized it as having hotter and less hot regions within it, not a uniform mass of flame. You can get lucky and just happen to be in one of those less hot areas, even if you can't dodge at all. So the caster with a higher save DC has a more consistent ball of fire with fewer "cold" spots. It has nothing to do with their "aim."