| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
On Touch AC: Running the numbers of the first few hundred entries in the Pathfinder 2 Playtest Bestiary, 97% of creatures have a touch AC between 0 and 4 points less than their regular AC, with the average being around 1.95 less. For game balance, this makes sense; having too low a touch AC means a creature can be not only hit more, but crit much more by touch attacks. Thematically… the fact that a colossal dragon has the same difference between touch and regular AC as a gnoll is a little weird.
I am not sure of how the math for determining monster AC vs Touch AC works, as that hasn’t been published yet, but for PCs it is derived from the two separate AC values granted by armor, which yields difference of 0 (for unarmoured characters) and 4 (for fullplate). In essence, the same spread as we see in the overwhelming majority of monsters.
I have to ask the question: Is the added complexity of deriving touch AC from equipment and other modifiers adding to the game, or would the simple statement of “Your touch AC is 2 less than your regular AC” be sufficient? Incorporeal creatures could simply have the special rule that their touch AC is equal to their regular AC, and anything that is particularly ungainly, could simply have the “Ungainly” special quality to cause their touch AC to be 4 points lower than their regular AC.
On Armor: Given that medium and heavy armor costs more, is bulkier, requires additional feats (if it’s not a class proficiency), slows movement, penalizes a broad array of skills and at times even limits saving throws, it offers disturbingly little in return – offering only equal AC (and lower touch AC) than a high-Dex light armor character without fighter or paladin (heavy only) proficiency boosts. Furthermore, given the mobility of Pathfinder 2 combat, restriction on ability modifiers and skill modifiers attainable and scaling DCs… I can’t help but feel like the penalties of heavy armor are actually more significant in Pathfinder 2 than they were in Pathfinder 1, while the benefits are less.
Historically, the motivation behind heavy armor was that it allowed characters to focus on raising Strength, and not need much Dex, however given the hard limitations on how high a single attribute can be raised, and push to instead raise multiple stats, the main advantage of the heavy armor route seems to be lost, especially at higher levels when many characters can easily attain a Dex of 18 or so even when it is a secondary stat. To me, this also has the issue of pushing characters towards more homogenous builds (), which is a tad disappointing.
The heavy armor offers slightly more AC, but at considerable cost.
As the barbarian gains levels and opportunities to raise Dex (along with 3 other stats), they have a choice; Stick with medium or heavy armor, or raise Dex and drop to lighter armor for the increased convenience. For example;
At 5th level raising Dex to 16 negates the benefit of heavy armor – instead heavy armor offers the same AC, but with lower touch AC, greater bulk and greater speed reduction.
At 10th (or 5th, if you start with Dex 16) level raising Dex to 18 makes even medium armor a difficult prospect, as a chain shirt offers an AC 1 less, the same touch AC, but with virtually no penalties of any kind.
So why use heavy armor? As far as I can tell, it amounts to two reasons: Because you’re playing a paladin; or because, numbers and quality of life be damned, your character concept wears heavy armor as a style statement.
Armor and Resistance, A Proposal: As an alternative to having separate Touch AC statistics and the present numbers for armor, I’d like to propose the idea that armor could grant a certain amount of resistance to all damage types.
I’d pitch that the base amount of resistance armor offers be equal to the current amount of touch AC bonus it gives, and that it does not stack with other resistances (e.g. the barbarian class feature, resist energy spells and so on). Potency runes would then increase the resistance granted as follows:
Thus, a Dex 12 character in +5 full plate may have an AC comparable to that of a Dex 20 character in a +5 chain shirt, but where the master light armor offers 6 resistance, full movement speed, no check penalty and half the bulk, the master heavy armor offers 17 resistance, but at a -10 movement speed, and still has a -3 armor check penalty. This makes it a tradeoff between skill & mobility vs protection, which I believe to be closer to the intent behind armor selection.
At least, this is my 2c, based on creating and playing a few different characters at low level.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If casters can use their primary casting stat to make touch and ranged touch attacks, like Int for a Wizard, they wouldn't even need Touch AC at all. They could just use AC and everyone would be better off.
I'm also still of the opinion that Fortification should be baked into all heavy armor. If you would get a crit against a target wearing heavy armor, you have to make a flat check against a DC equal to their armor bonus or the crit is negated back to a regular hit. It would go a long way to making heavy armor less s!##.
I don't feel armor as DR would work though, due to the way damage scales at higher levels. It's nice or even too good at low levels (when people are hitting for like 3-10 at a time), but worthless at high levels (when people are hitting for 30-100 at a time). The only way it would work is as a percentage, which is great for a computer game but not so great for a fast moving pen and paper game played by humans.
I don't feel armor as DR would work though, due to the way damage scales at higher levels. It's nice or even too good at low levels (when people are hitting for like 3-10 at a time), but worthless at high levels (when people are hitting for 30-100 at a time). The only way it would work is as a percentage, which is great for a computer game but not so great for a fast moving pen and paper game played by humans.
I've played with it as a house rule for a few years now, and you are correct in that nailing the damage reductions scaling is rather challenging, for all the reasons you've stated. That being said, I think it is an obstacle that can be overcome.
Numerically, you want it to be a portion of the average damage for a give creature level, and remain fairly consistent. Without knowing the target numbers (yet) I can only spitball ideas, really, but it should be possible to achieve.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
TAC seems like a bad port of KAC and EAC from starfinder. I don't think it has a place any-more in Pathfinder. A boost to accuracy for touch attacks has a good symmetry with the circumstance penalty of being flat footed.
Or just use reflex defense it already exists and is used for combat maneuvers and is a better representation of pure dodging.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
On Touch AC: Running the numbers of the first few hundred entries in the Pathfinder 2 Playtest Bestiary, 97% of creatures have a touch AC between 0 and 4 points less than their regular AC, with the average being around 1.95 less. For game balance, this makes sense; having too low a touch AC means a creature can be not only hit more, but crit much more by touch attacks. Thematically… the fact that a colossal dragon has the same difference between touch and regular AC as a gnoll is a little weird.
Earlier, I came across someone proposing removing TAC from the game and making it a Condition along the lines of Flat Footed. I actually came here to start this thread - but searched first and found that you'd already done it for me!
Touch Armor Class isn't distinct enough to warrant keeping. TAC equals AC -2 is a solid simplification and I like your thought with Ungainly.
On Armor: Given that medium and heavy armor costs more, is bulkier, requires additional feats (if it’s not a class proficiency), slows movement, penalizes a broad array of skills and at times even limits saving throws, it offers disturbingly little in return – offering only equal AC (and lower touch AC) than a high-Dex light armor character without fighter or paladin (heavy only) proficiency boosts. Furthermore, given the mobility of Pathfinder 2 combat, restriction on ability modifiers and skill modifiers attainable and scaling DCs… I can’t help but feel like the penalties of heavy armor are actually more significant in Pathfinder 2 than they were in Pathfinder 1, while the benefits are less.
I noticed this as well.
Armor and Resistance, A Proposal: As an alternative to having separate Touch AC statistics and the present numbers for armor, I’d like to propose the idea that armor could grant a certain amount of resistance to all damage types.
I’d pitch that the base amount of resistance armor offers be equal to the current amount of touch AC bonus it gives, and that it does not stack with other resistances (e.g. the barbarian class feature, resist energy spells and so on). Potency runes would then increase the resistance granted as follows:
Light Armor increases the resistance by an amount equal to the potency
Medium Armor increases the resistance by an amount equal to twice the potency
Heavy Armor increases the resistance by an amount equal to three times the potency
Here's where I differ. I'd rather not have Armor grant resistance to all damage types. Maybe if it's magical...but I don't think it really makes sense for armor, out of the box, to resist negative energy. I can see the argument for fire, acid, etc.
But I would like armor to grant Damage Reduction/Physical Resistance.
Light Armor: 0
Medium Armor: Armor Proficiency + Potency
Heavy Armor: Armor Proficiency + Double Potency
I'm also still of the opinion that Fortification should be baked into all heavy armor. If you would get a crit against a target wearing heavy armor, you have to make a flat check against a DC equal to their armor bonus or the crit is negated back to a regular hit.
I like this alternative proposal as well.
From what I've been reading (been searching the forums for a while now) it seems that the consensus is that
- ♦TAC should be trashed and most things just get a neg 2 to AC against things that do the touch attacking (with exceptions here and there because no blanket rule is ever a true fix all)
- ♦Heavy armor needs more incentives because currently it isn't fulfilling the fantasy of "YOU CAN'T EVEN BEGIN TO DREAM ABOUT TOUCHING ME!"
- ♦Casters need a way of hitting more often because even if you change armor as presented above, they'd still have the lowest accuracy rates of any PC out there
From what I've been reading (been searching the forums for a while now) it seems that the consensus is thatAll in all I really like these ideas, I'm just wondering if Paizo is gonna try these all at once, one at a time, or not at all and look for some other route to fixing armor, because no matter what, it DOES need fixing.
- ♦TAC should be trashed and most things just get a neg 2 to AC against things that do the touch attacking (with exceptions here and there because no blanket rule is ever a true fix all)
- ♦Heavy armor needs more incentives because currently it isn't fulfilling the fantasy of "YOU CAN'T EVEN BEGIN TO DREAM ABOUT TOUCHING ME!"
- ♦Casters need a way of hitting more often because even if you change armor as presented above, they'd still have the lowest accuracy rates of any PC out there
Casters don't have bad attack.
In fact they have some of the best attack modifiers.
Only them and the fighters get "legendary" on their attacks, and while they are using their secondary stat (so -2) they target touch (so +2 on average). Their +item caps at +4 instead of +5.
So, in total, currently they are the 2nd best attack rolls.
In total you're looking at level+12 vs TAC, which is about equal to level+14 vs normal.
It would take:
Attacking stat is primary (+7)
Master in your weapon (+2)
+5 weapon (+5)To be equal to them.
That's fair, it's just in the games I've played, the caster using an attack role based spell normally whiffs A LOT! So from my personal experience their to-hit is poor. I did totally forget about the Legendary proficiency thing, it's that it's so late in the class compared to the martial classes (they get expert at 12 compared to Fighters starting with it, Rangers at 3, and Paladins at 5), but I do see your point of them not being as helpless as I first thought, it just takes them a while to catch up is all :P
I'd prefer touch armor class to simply go away and caster's proficiency raised to compensate. This would also improve save DCs, which seems to be a good thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd prefer touch armor class to simply go away and caster's proficiency raised to compensate. This would also improve save DCs, which seems to be a good thing.casters already reach legendary proficiency
But they don't get expert until lvl 12. Master at 16 and legendary at 19. Giving expert and master erlier would help make mid level mages better.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another vote for removing touch AC, and letting casters just use casting mod to attack rolls for rays & the like. Fewer numbers, and keeps modifiers between spell attacks and spell "attacks" (like fireball) more consistent. Increasing caster proficiency slightly earlier (at least to expert) would be nice (though please not at the expense of class feats) as well.
Also I feel like rays are rather weak compared to aoe spells. The damage increase on single target doesn't feel like it makes up for the fact that a "fail" for a ray is 0 damage while a "fail" for an aoe spell is half damage. When a target passes a save against a fireball, I'm a bit disappointed, but have at least done something. When I miss a ray, it feels terrible as I blew a daily resource & 2 actions for no gain.