|
A while ago the gear preview made think of Touch AC, and how it (perhaps needlessly) complicates combat, especially now that saving throws are in the limelight in a new way. Do we really need attack rolls for things like Searing light, Acid arrow or Disintegrate, since Ref saves already kind of take care of that? How many effects are there in the game that have to actually hit your body but not your skin? For example, acid must seep through your armor, and I think your leather armor and shield *should* protect you against flames. Disintegrate needs to "hit flesh" to work, I think, since it only affects organic material (IIRC).
I want to open this topic for discussion because I think Stephen's idea of granting circumstance/temporary bonus for these effects (that actually need only hit your TAC) should cover it. How many of these effects that justify TAC as a mechanic does even exist in the game?
I think attacking AC should be just fine, without TAC being necessary. Especially if there are expert / Master / legend implements like rods or staves that can give an attack bonus to Ray and "Touch" spells.
If TAC remains, it should be renamed to a "Magic AC" because it's certainly not touch anymore. Pure touch AC would be 10 + Reflex.
I think it is possible you guys are right, but we won't know until we get the game. If you still feel that way after playing around with it and seeing what the different values are like, you can probably give that feedback. It's a big change, but it doesn't sound too big to implement if enough people feel strongly enough about it. (Going by the examples we were told about from the Starfinder playtest.)
Eh, it provides some variety in armor, and it provides a type of attack that’s likelier to hit/crit.
The conceptual difference between static reflex defense (or whatever they call it) and TAC seems pretty small. I think this is a place that can be easily simplified without loosing significant character depth. Obviously I need to wait to see the whole playtest to run the numbers and try stuff out but this is on my list.
|
|
Eh, it provides some variety in armor, and it provides a type of attack that’s likelier to hit/crit.
Hmh. I personally feel that variety or easier hits/crits doesn't really justify why TAC should be in the game. What other purpose does it serve, if any? I don't recall many effects actually affecting you without needing to "touch flesh", which is what TAC originally in 3E was all about. Okay, incorporeal touch and certain touch spells serve as concrete examples, while acid flasks hitting your shield or armor should only do splash damage to you. I find it odd that your plate mail protects you against incorporeal claws of a spectre, in that sense it feels "magical".
I think static defenses (a la 4E; 10 + Fort/Ref/Will modifier) would be fine, and saving throws would represent your active defenses.
Using reflex-based defenses means it occupies the same space as combat maneuvers, and doesn’t guarantee equal-or-lower DC. I’m viewing it as “all the same reasons as before, but it’s balanced now”. (Well, not all the same reasons. Wizards no longer need it just to hit, and the likelier crits is new.)
I personally prefer them to keep TAC as is. It tightens the math making the TAC attacks less of an overpowered MUST get...
Eg:
20th Level Full Plate Sword and Board Paladin: +5 Mithral Full Plate (2+5 TAC); +3 Proficiency; +3 DEX; +2 TAC Shield; +20; +10= 45 TAC
Paladin's Save DC: +0 Trained+3 DEX+20 Levels+5 Armour+10= 38
That's a 7 point difference between the two. Not good in the new crit system. And it's not much better for anyone else either. A Level 20 DEX Monk who is Legendary at REF Saves AND Armour gets around a 46 TAC and a REF Save of 35. That's a 10 point difference!
So you may not like it thematically, (I'm ok with changing the name) but mathematically I think we need it to stay the same.
Since we are "opening up the patient" as it were we can find ways to change the math as well I don't think that is a good reason to keep things as they are.
Since we are "opening up the patient" as it were we can find ways to change the math as well I don't think that is a good reason to keep things as they are.
Yeah, we'll have to see about that. My point is at this present moment the conceptual difference between the Static Reflex Defence and TAC gets pretty large over the levels. So if you want to change it up, it'll need a serious math overhaul. Not that it can't be done, I just doubt it will be. Changing it will probably open up a plethora of issues that we can't foresee atm. Like you'll have to make it competitive with spell casters and there attack bonuses and what not. Then what about those who are weak at reflex saves? (actually the Paladin was weak at those...) Then there's the variations of armour in the game that removing TAC will affect.
Anyways... The designers goals were to make simpler math for the game. And overhauling TAC into REF would complicate it, not simplify it.I also don't mind it thematically, but if it's changed I won't be against it. As long as it is just as good and simple as TAC.
Since it's not quite required to touch flesh, but does have to get close enough to that to get a reaction out of you, I suggest renaming it to Tickle Armor Class, or TAC for short.
A while ago the gear preview made think of Touch AC, and how it (perhaps needlessly) complicates combat, especially now that saving throws are in the limelight in a new way. Do we really need attack rolls for things like Searing light, Acid arrow or Disintegrate, since Ref saves already kind of take care of that? How many effects are there in the game that have to actually hit your body but not your skin? For example, acid must seep through your armor, and I think your leather armor and shield *should* protect you against flames. Disintegrate needs to "hit flesh" to work, I think, since it only affects organic material (IIRC).
I want to open this topic for discussion because I think Stephen's idea of granting circumstance/temporary bonus for these effects (that actually need only hit your TAC) should cover it. How many of these effects that justify TAC as a mechanic does even exist in the game?
"When used against an object, the ray simply disintegrates as much as a 10-foot cube of nonliving matter. Thus, the spell disintegrates only part of any very large object or structure targeted. The ray affects even objects constructed entirely of force, such as forceful hand or a wall of force, but not magical effects such as a globe of invulnerability or an antimagic field."
Im coming from a posistion where I expect we will have a REF defence for combat maneuvers anyways which the devs will need to balance around. From that point a lot of spells attack refles save already so I don't think balancing it would be too difficult.
It would be more work on the developer side now but from a player perspective it would eliminate a redundant stat and make the game easier to learn.
EDIT: Also conceptually armor boosts to TAC seem a bit forced. This whole AC and TAC system seems shoehorned in here from Starfinder. Kinetic and Energy armor makes sense in that setting but not in Pathfinder.
Touch AC was already conceptually redundant with Reflex saves, in that both represent you dodging an incoming threat without the benefit of armor. The only differences were the specific game mechanisms by which they were resolved (one is the caster of the Disintegration ray rolling to try and hit you, the other is you rolling to try and dodge a Fireball), and that always felt like a clunky artifact of the system. For example, if you were also flat-footed, that Disintegration caster has an easier time trying to hit you, but you aren't any worse off trying to dodge that Fireball. They're both supposed to represent you dodging, so why would you be worse off dodging one but not also the other?
I feel like the in universe the distinction between area of effect attacks and touch attacks remains pretty distinct, even if how touch attacks works with rays, splash weapons, and other effects is a little blurred.
Mechanically, AoE stuff still does half damage on a save, and it would be weird if Scorching Ray did half damage on a miss. (Albeit, not completely insane with the 4 degrees of success.
|
I actually like the design space that TAC fills, that being you can have different pieces of armor not be simply mechanically superior, but fill different holes in defenses. What if, for example, there's a suit of heavy armor with lower AC than Full-Plate, but better TAC? In most campaigns that might seem strange, but consider that against some foes having a high TAC is so valuable that it might be worth reducing your AC for a boost. Heck, if magic users are featured heavily in a campaign, TAC-heavy armor might just be your go-to choice in that campaign entirely.
This prevents a little bit of the gear treadmill for armor, and SHOULD allow for meaningful choices for the player. Whether or not it will remains to be seen.
Yeah, we know the TAC gap can be as high as +4 for armor. Making TAC a bonus to hit eliminates that point of distinction between monks and full plate users and whatnot.
We already lost that distinction for flat-footed AC. Not sure the game would be better if we lost another.
Yeah, we know the TAC gap can be as high as +4 for armor. Making TAC a bonus to hit eliminates that point of distinction between monks and full plate users and whatnot.
We already lost that distinction for flat-footed AC. Not sure the game would be better if we lost another.
I think a more natural distinction for armor types would be to add resistance to armor. That would help keep all the AC math tighter to avoid critical this while still allowing a fully armored character to have better defenses than an unarmored one.
|
|
Since we are "opening up the patient" as it were we can find ways to change the math as well I don't think that is a good reason to keep things as they are.Yeah, we'll have to see about that. My point is at this present moment the conceptual difference between the Static Reflex Defence and TAC gets pretty large over the levels. So if you want to change it up, it'll need a serious math overhaul. Not that it can't be done, I just doubt it will be. Changing it will probably open up a plethora of issues that we can't foresee atm. Like you'll have to make it competitive with spell casters and there attack bonuses and what not. Then what about those who are weak at reflex saves? (actually the Paladin was weak at those...) Then there's the variations of armour in the game that removing TAC will affect.
Anyways... The designers goals were to make simpler math for the game. And overhauling TAC into REF would complicate it, not simplify it.
I also don't mind it thematically, but if it's changed I won't be against it. As long as it is just as good and simple as TAC.
Yeah, it might need some tweaks to math or the 4E-style defenses likely wouldn't work in PF2. Maybe then what Stephen suggested, i.e. that all attacks target your regular AC, while incorporeal effects and energy-like rays would simply get a circumstance/conditional bonus on the roll? That way can always rely on your paladin's super AC, certain effects might just (in practise) lower it to mere 40-42.
Yeah, it might need some tweaks to math or the 4E-style defenses likely wouldn't work in PF2. Maybe then what Stephen suggested, i.e. that all attacks target your regular AC, while incorporeal effects and energy-like rays would simply get a circumstance/conditional bonus on the roll? That way can always rely on your paladin's super AC, certain effects might just (in practise) lower it to mere 40-42.
They are already using 4E style defenses for combat maneuvers and one of the benefits of having everything scale the same is that switching stats around is a whole lot easier to do.
I'm not too keen on the whole change to touch AC. I feel like it was firearms that were the real offender for touch attacks, and it strikes me as backwards to rework the underlying mechanics because one subsystem misused them.
The problem with firearms in PF1 was that touch AC was absolutely the wrong system to use for them. Touch AC is a bit like spell resistance; it's a cool defense that renders you extra-resistant to certain types of attacks, but not every creature is going to have access to that defense. So long as the designer kept in mind that touch AC was a circumstantial defense this wouldn't be a problem. It only became a problem when firearms violated that unwritten rule, leaving a plethora of creatures and characters with functionally no defense against firearm attacks.
Anyways, I suspect it's a done deal. There's been more than a few hints dropped that we have yet to see the full picture here, so I'll wait for the final rules to see what we're actually looking at. But it's not really the touch AC we know from PF1.
Touch AC was already conceptually redundant with Reflex saves, in that both represent you dodging an incoming threat without the benefit of armor. The only differences were the specific game mechanisms by which they were resolved (one is the caster of the Disintegration ray rolling to try and hit you, the other is you rolling to try and dodge a Fireball), and that always felt like a clunky artifact of the system. For example, if you were also flat-footed, that Disintegration caster has an easier time trying to hit you, but you aren't any worse off trying to dodge that Fireball. They're both supposed to represent you dodging, so why would you be worse off dodging one but not also the other?
By the way they have everything scaling now, it wouldn't be out of the question to have an effect that in PF1 would target Touch AC target a creature's Reflex DC instead in PF2.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not too keen on the whole change to touch AC. I feel like it was firearms that were the real offender for touch attacks, and it strikes me as backwards to rework the underlying mechanics because one subsystem misused them.
The problem with firearms in PF1 was that touch AC was absolutely the wrong system to use for them. Touch AC is a bit like spell resistance; it's a cool defense that renders you extra-resistant to certain types of attacks, but not every creature is going to have access to that defense. So long as the designer kept in mind that touch AC was a circumstantial defense this wouldn't be a problem. It only became a problem when firearms violated that unwritten rule, leaving a plethora of creatures and characters with functionally no defense against firearm attacks.
Anyways, I suspect it's a done deal. There's been more than a few hints dropped that we have yet to see the full picture here, so I'll wait for the final rules to see what we're actually looking at. But it's not really the touch AC we know from PF1.
Considering firearms aren't in the playtest, I'm pretty sure they changed up touch AC because it just works better with their new math. Having a scorching ray always crit on a giant because the giant's TAC is 12 points lower than its AC might have caused concern. Though I suspect with your opinions on blast damage, you'd disagree that is a problem. ;)
Though I suspect with your opinions on blast damage, you'd disagree that is a problem. ;)
The baseline damage should be sufficiently high; relying on an auto-crit mechanic to bring it up is hardly ideal. You are right about the problem that the crit system presents for a defense that may or may not be present, and would effectively mean that touch attacks wouldn't be allowed to crit.