PDA

View Full Version : Possible idea for making AC matter...



mobrien316
02-09-2012, 09:23 PM
In trying to come up with a viable idea for making AC actually mean something, I have been kicking around the following idea:

If you wear Light Armor:
AC<20 = 2% of incoming physical damage is ignored
AC 20-29 = 4% of incoming physical damage is ignored
AC 30-39 = 6% of incoming physical damage is ignored
AC 40-49 = 8% of incoming physical damage is ignored
AC 50-59 = 10% of incoming physical damage is ignored
AC 60-69 = 12% of incoming physical damage is ignored
AC 70-79 = 14% of incoming physical damage is ignored
AC 80-89 = 16% of incoming physical damage is ignored
AC 90-99 = 18% of incoming physical damage is ignored
AC 100 and over = 20% of incoming physical damage is ignored

If you wear Medium Armor:
AC<20 = 5% of incoming physical damage is ignored
AC 20-29 = 10% of incoming physical damage is ignored
AC 30-39 = 15% of incoming physical damage is ignored
AC 40-49 = 20% of incoming physical damage is ignored
AC 50-59 = 25% of incoming physical damage is ignored
AC 60-69 = 30% of incoming physical damage is ignored
AC 70-79 = 35% of incoming physical damage is ignored
AC 80-89 = 40% of incoming physical damage is ignored
AC 90-99 = 45% of incoming physical damage is ignored
AC 100 and over = 50% of incoming physical damage is ignored

If you wear Heavy Armor:
AC<20 = 8% of incoming physical damage is ignored
AC 20-29 = 16% of incoming physical damage is ignored
AC 30-39 = 24% of incoming physical damage is ignored
AC 40-49 = 32% of incoming physical damage is ignored
AC 50-59 = 40% of incoming physical damage is ignored
AC 60-69 = 48% of incoming physical damage is ignored
AC 70-79 = 56% of incoming physical damage is ignored
AC 80-89 = 64% of incoming physical damage is ignored
AC 90-99 = 72% of incoming physical damage is ignored
AC 100 and over = 80% of incoming physical damage is ignored

If you wear no armor, there is no incoming damage ignored unless you have evasion or improved evasion. If you have evasion, incoming damage is ignored as though you were wearing light armor. If you have improved evasion, incoming damage is ignored as though you were wearing medium armor.

This is just an idea – the numbers are far from perfect.


Someone recently posted that it seems ridiculous that a fighter can obtain the same benefit from wearing pajamas as he can from wearing plate mail, which I agree is ridiculous. A fighter (for example) wearing plate mail and carrying a tower shield should be able to ignore a large amount of incoming physical damage, certainly more than a fighter carrying two weapons and wearing pajamas.

Sidewaysgts86
02-10-2012, 01:15 AM
Sounds a lot like the thread I made very recently..

bloodnose13
02-10-2012, 07:33 AM
idea is good at base but there is a problem of mithral, mithral armors are class lower so wearing mithral fullplate would be bit punishing since most good fp armors are mithral, maybe instead it should be based on armor type (fullplate, halfplate, etc).

noinfo
02-10-2012, 07:35 AM
In trying to come up with a viable idea for making AC actually mean something, I have been kicking around the following idea:

If you wear Light Armor:
AC<20 = 2% of incoming physical damage is ignored
AC 20-29 = 4% of incoming physical damage is ignored
AC 30-39 = 6% of incoming physical damage is ignored
AC 40-49 = 8% of incoming physical damage is ignored
AC 50-59 = 10% of incoming physical damage is ignored
AC 60-69 = 12% of incoming physical damage is ignored
AC 70-79 = 14% of incoming physical damage is ignored
AC 80-89 = 16% of incoming physical damage is ignored
AC 90-99 = 18% of incoming physical damage is ignored
AC 100 and over = 20% of incoming physical damage is ignored

If you wear Medium Armor:
AC<20 = 5% of incoming physical damage is ignored
AC 20-29 = 10% of incoming physical damage is ignored
AC 30-39 = 15% of incoming physical damage is ignored
AC 40-49 = 20% of incoming physical damage is ignored
AC 50-59 = 25% of incoming physical damage is ignored
AC 60-69 = 30% of incoming physical damage is ignored
AC 70-79 = 35% of incoming physical damage is ignored
AC 80-89 = 40% of incoming physical damage is ignored
AC 90-99 = 45% of incoming physical damage is ignored
AC 100 and over = 50% of incoming physical damage is ignored

If you wear Heavy Armor:
AC<20 = 8% of incoming physical damage is ignored
AC 20-29 = 16% of incoming physical damage is ignored
AC 30-39 = 24% of incoming physical damage is ignored
AC 40-49 = 32% of incoming physical damage is ignored
AC 50-59 = 40% of incoming physical damage is ignored
AC 60-69 = 48% of incoming physical damage is ignored
AC 70-79 = 56% of incoming physical damage is ignored
AC 80-89 = 64% of incoming physical damage is ignored
AC 90-99 = 72% of incoming physical damage is ignored
AC 100 and over = 80% of incoming physical damage is ignored

If you wear no armor, there is no incoming damage ignored unless you have evasion or improved evasion. If you have evasion, incoming damage is ignored as though you were wearing light armor. If you have improved evasion, incoming damage is ignored as though you were wearing medium armor.

This is just an idea – the numbers are far from perfect.


Someone recently posted that it seems ridiculous that a fighter can obtain the same benefit from wearing pajamas as he can from wearing plate mail, which I agree is ridiculous. A fighter (for example) wearing plate mail and carrying a tower shield should be able to ignore a large amount of incoming physical damage, certainly more than a fighter carrying two weapons and wearing pajamas.

Or they could actually make AC work like AC by adjusting the die roll instead.

grodon9999
02-10-2012, 07:56 AM
Or they could actually make AC work like AC by adjusting the die roll instead.

nah, it's much easier for people to come up with convoluted and overly-complicated ideas so they can feel smarter.

This idea is horrible.

Memek
02-10-2012, 07:59 AM
The distinction between Medium and Heavy Armor is bad since it would make Mithral a gimpy attribute on armors.

In general, the distinction between the different kinds is not good imho. Should disappear. There are advantages to Med/Hvy Armor - Defenders (Strength based) can reach very AC values - im not quite sure how the Monk splashes but to get close to the Defenders, they certainly cant be Strength based so in DPS a Str Fighter with Heavy Armor will do more damage. Nevermind that since the Defender changes, Heavy Armor reaches the highest AC values as far as i know.
And, wearing a shield and wearing heavy armor are two different things.

The difference between absorption is FAR too high between the different kinds of armor.

As it is, it would gimp Rangers since they'd only get the reduction from light armor while being melee. Heck, they'd get less reduction than Rogues in robes.

Btw, medium and heavy armors usually feature stronger effects on them so there are reasons to wear. To find a dress that compares to Epic Mari Chain or Epic Cav Plate... You cant, and why is that? Because both of those are medium, disable Evasion and have thus received stronger effects.

---

Furthermore, the system would lead to quests that would become unsolvable unless you bring a very high AC tank. If it has to be assumed by the devs that all damage is reduced by 80%, any character with less will be completely obliberated. Basically, everything high level would have to balanced with 80% reduction in mind, and then see what happens when your Barb gets some aggro...

The absorption is far too high in the proposal, it would have to cap out at 50% absolute max. Furthermore, the absorption value cant only be dependent on your AC score but has to be the result of a comparison between the monsters attack score and the character's AC, since otherwise the damage output in the highest level content would have to 1 shot characters with lesser defenses while high but not highest level content would become completely trivial for Mr 80%.

Some players might wish for a more-WoW like game where you MUST bring a defensive tank to do any group content but i dont think we want that in DDO. And 80% absorption vs everything would certainly lead to that. Anyone but Mr 80% would get 1 shotted, and we dont want that.


---


Overall, while i do think that AC has to be converted to an absorption value in the long term, the suggestion as it stands would break the game very heavily.

somenewnoob
02-10-2012, 08:02 AM
Or they could actually make AC work like AC by adjusting the die roll instead.

One thing I worry about with that.......that will mean mob ac will have to matter to.......and as usual who gets Sandusky'd? Melees!

I like the premise of the OP's idea.

But really I think the whole "roll a 20" just does not translate well into a MMO that has such a vast range of possible AC. I just don't want to see it implemented in a way that makes melee's less effective by making their die rolls different.

grodon9999
02-10-2012, 08:17 AM
But really I think the whole "roll a 20" just does not translate well into a MMO that has such a vast range of possible AC. I just don't want to see it implemented in a way that makes melee's less effective by making their die rolls different.

Expand the range to a 2-40 or 3-60 variable.

What makes the OPs idea dumb is the tie in to armor type, it's as dumb as the Shield mastery mitigation % being tied to shield type. So little of your AC actually comes from your armor (16 points max) that that being the determining factor is dumb.

somenewnoob
02-10-2012, 08:28 AM
Expand the range to a 2-40 or 3-60 variable.

What makes the OPs idea dumb is the tie in to armor type, it's as dumb as the Shield mastery mitigation % being tied to shield type. So little of your AC actually comes from your armor (16 points max) that that being the determining factor is dumb.

Aye, I've given this a lot of thought over the months and thought of that as well, an attack range instead of 1-20 + x.

The only reason I thought that might not be great is.......so now mobs have an attack range......are they going to do the same things to melee's now? Instead of having a BAB of x, will I now have a range of x to y.

I know they don't HAVE TO make it the same for players.....and could just leave what we have in place for players and change mobs to hit to that.....but it just seems.....unfair :p!

grodon9999
02-10-2012, 08:41 AM
Aye, I've given this a lot of thought over the months and thought of that as well, an attack range instead of 1-20 + x.

That fact that you agree with me show's you are a smart man who understand the game mechanics :)



The only reason I thought that might not be great is.......so now mobs have an attack range......are they going to do the same things to melee's now? Instead of having a BAB of x, will I now have a range of x to y.

I know they don't HAVE TO make it the same for players.....and could just leave what we have in place for players and change mobs to hit to that.....but it just seems.....unfair :p!

Why in god's name would Turbine have to do that? The players and mobs do now operate by the same rules, never have and never should. Maybe when I have 500,000 HP that would make sense.

Krago
02-10-2012, 08:43 AM
nah, it's much easier for people to come up with convoluted and overly-complicated ideas so they can feel smarter.

This idea is horrible.

Grab youself a cup of joe and lets be constructive.

The idea is a start but I do believe its with the wrong foot. The idea does give benefits to those builds who use armor. It does inherently penalize those without armor, Monks/Rangers. They may have worked equally as hard to get their AC to 80+ and deserve to be included in being helped out but any AC improvement.

grodon9999
02-10-2012, 08:47 AM
Grab youself a cup of joe and lets be constructive.



As soon as Madfloyd posts his official thread my dissertation on defense will be posted. No point is going over anything else until that happens.

Krago
02-10-2012, 08:53 AM
As soon as Madfloyd posts his official thread my dissertation on defense will be posted. No point is going over anything else until that happens.

And as always, I will be very interested into your thoughts on AC.

somenewnoob
02-10-2012, 08:54 AM
Why in god's name would Turbine have to do that? The players and mobs do now operate by the same rules, never have and never should. Maybe when I have 500,000 HP that would make sense.

That's an excellent point! :p

noinfo
02-10-2012, 08:55 AM
As soon as Madfloyd posts his official thread my dissertation on defense will be posted. No point is going over anything else until that happens.

And its now a week overdue? :D

grodon9999
02-10-2012, 08:57 AM
And its now a week overdue? :D

I think Madfloyd's been on a week-long bender from the superbowl, either that or he's busy buying up all the torches and pitchforks in the greater Boston area as a precaution.

Missing_Minds
02-10-2012, 09:12 AM
I think Madfloyd's been on a week-long bender from the superbowl, either that or he's busy buying up all the torches and pitchforks in the greater Boston area as a precaution.

More like a weeklong + BUYer due to all the work that is going to be necessary for an AC overhaul.

Silverwren
02-10-2012, 09:15 AM
AC100? :eek:

Is that even possible? I've never seen anything over 40 or so on any of my melee toons.

herzkos
02-10-2012, 09:15 AM
i'm also going to wait for the "official" discussion with the exception that
I would like armor to matter by using DR to the types it would actually
be effective against.
/edit

AC100? :eek:

Is that even possible? I've never seen anything over 40 or so on any of my melee toons.

lots of gear and or multiclass utilization.

Grailhawk
02-10-2012, 10:37 AM
Any change to defense in this game needs to first address monster to-hit in epics being way to high. I'm a fan of changing the the way monsters hit from 1d20+80 to 20d5 but if you had to keep the d20 then 3d20+40 would be fine.

About your system for adding damage reduction to AC I think it would work better if you added a modifier lets call it armor rank that works as a multiplier. This would mean that any one with a armor rank of 1 would get the 2%-20% damage reduction like you suggest for light armor. So using your example you would give all light armor a armor rank of 1, medium armor a rank of 3 and heavy armor a rank of 4. This would raise the values slightly since 20 *3 = 60 but IMO it would probably be better to do 1,2,3.

This has the benefit of letting you put armor rank on other equipment like Bracers plus allowing you to give custom ranks like 1.5 to different equipment and you can keep armor rank off low level gear where AC works fine now.

Cormath
02-10-2012, 10:46 AM
I am in favor of making Armor Type mean something. This as a way to balance the skill penalties. I suggest keeping it simple and not complicating AC math (which is a mess in its own right). I am in favor of DR/- percentages to give scaling but at very small numbers (combined with shield under 7%).

I have been talking about this for a while with friends. Posted it yesterday as a new thread:
http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php?t=361374

mobrien316
02-10-2012, 12:04 PM
What makes the OPs idea dumb is the tie in to armor type, it's as dumb as the Shield mastery mitigation % being tied to shield type. So little of your AC actually comes from your armor (16 points max) that that being the determining factor is dumb.

It seems to make sense that someone wearing plate mail can absorb/ignore more incoming physical damage than someone wearing leather armor. It also seems to make sense that a person hiding behind a tower shield can absorb/ignore more incoming physical damage than someone with a buckler the size of a dinner plate on their forearm.

But comparing that idea to your well-reasoned counterargument (i.e. - "it's dumb") seems pointless.

redspecter23
02-10-2012, 12:21 PM
I'll agree that the basics of the OP are sound, but he's overthought it in my opinion. That's not a bad thing in the discussion phase of a proposed change, but I think boiling it down to it's simplest form is the best way to go. I'd propose something more inline with how shield mastery works. Add in a line of feats called armor mastery (light, medium, heavy)

Light Armor Mastery
Prerequisite: Light Armor Proficiency, Level 10
While wearing light armor, you gain DR 10%

Medium Armor Mastery
Prerequisite: Medium Armor Proficiency, Level 10
While wearing medium armor, you gain DR 15%

Heavy Armor Mastery
Prerequisite: Heavy Armor Proficiency, Level 10
While wearing heavy armor, you gain DR 20%

Also a line of enhancements to go along with each

Improved Light Armor Mastery I
Prerequisite: Light Armor Mastery, Level 13
Your DR while wearing light armor is improved by 5% for a total of 15% DR

Improved Light Armor Mastery II
Prerequisite: Improved Light Armor Mastery I, Level 16
Your DR while wearing light armor is improved by 5% for a total of 20% DR

Improved Light Armor Mastery III
Prerequisite Improved Light Armor Mastery II, Level 12 Paladin or Level 12 Fighter
Your DR while wearing light armor is improved by 5% for a total of 25% DR

Add similar lines for medium armor (maxing at 25% DR or 30% for fighters/pallys) and heavy armor (maxing at 30% DR or 35% for fighters/pallys)

This separates DR from AC and keeps both as viable damage mitigation sources, even better if you can attain high numbers for both together. Monk splashes that rely on high AC will get no DR benefit here, but in general can attain high enough AC that they should be able to outright dodge more attacks than armored melees (or at least that's my theoretical hope after AC changes go through). For situations where monk splashes need DR, they can look to the earth stances. Casters can still benefit here if they choose to devote a feat to it (not the easiest thing on sorcerers at least) and then also devote gear/feats/enhancements to removing the arcane spell failure. Casters wishing for max DR would need 2 - 3 feats for shield mastery and armor mastery as well as devoting to removing 2 sources of arcane spell failure. Quite an investment that I feel most casters would not bother to go for, but it certainly opens up an option for a tanking caster, though he'd certainly have to give up offensive feats or enhancements at least somewhat to get there.

Krago
02-10-2012, 01:35 PM
I'll agree that the basics of the OP are sound, but he's overthought it in my opinion. That's not a bad thing in the discussion phase of a proposed change, but I think boiling it down to it's simplest form is the best way to go. I'd propose something more inline with how shield mastery works. Add in a line of feats called armor mastery (light, medium, heavy)

Light Armor Mastery
Prerequisite: Light Armor Proficiency, Level 10
While wearing light armor, you gain DR 10%

Medium Armor Mastery
Prerequisite: Medium Armor Proficiency, Level 10
While wearing medium armor, you gain DR 15%

Heavy Armor Mastery
Prerequisite: Heavy Armor Proficiency, Level 10
While wearing heavy armor, you gain DR 20%

Also a line of enhancements to go along with each

Improved Light Armor Mastery I
Prerequisite: Light Armor Mastery, Level 13
Your DR while wearing light armor is improved by 5% for a total of 15% DR

Improved Light Armor Mastery II
Prerequisite: Improved Light Armor Mastery I, Level 16
Your DR while wearing light armor is improved by 5% for a total of 20% DR

Improved Light Armor Mastery III
Prerequisite Improved Light Armor Mastery II, Level 12 Paladin or Level 12 Fighter
Your DR while wearing light armor is improved by 5% for a total of 25% DR

Add similar lines for medium armor (maxing at 25% DR or 30% for fighters/pallys) and heavy armor (maxing at 30% DR or 35% for fighters/pallys)

This separates DR from AC and keeps both as viable damage mitigation sources, even better if you can attain high numbers for both together. Monk splashes that rely on high AC will get no DR benefit here, but in general can attain high enough AC that they should be able to outright dodge more attacks than armored melees (or at least that's my theoretical hope after AC changes go through). For situations where monk splashes need DR, they can look to the earth stances. Casters can still benefit here if they choose to devote a feat to it (not the easiest thing on sorcerers at least) and then also devote gear/feats/enhancements to removing the arcane spell failure. Casters wishing for max DR would need 2 - 3 feats for shield mastery and armor mastery as well as devoting to removing 2 sources of arcane spell failure. Quite an investment that I feel most casters would not bother to go for, but it certainly opens up an option for a tanking caster, though he'd certainly have to give up offensive feats or enhancements at least somewhat to get there.

I dont know of a build out there that has feats to spare. I think that this system is far too expensive for anyone to invest in.

redspecter23
02-10-2012, 01:42 PM
I dont know of a build out there that has feats to spare. I think that this system is far too expensive for anyone to invest in.

The question is, are these feats good enough to be competitive for a feat slot on a toon that needs them? Toons don't have feat slots because we are trained to think that certain feats are ones we just can't live without, and for the most part that's true. We need more feats that, for lack of a better term, don't suck hardcore so they can be considered viable options. I could find space for one more feat on a defender fighter. On a sorcerer? I'd be making massive changes to fit this in. I see it as a feat for tanks looking for damage mitigation. I'd see this change as something to add in alongside an actual AC fix. In that way, ideally, most melee toons could get a usable AC if they chose to. If AC isn't an option on their build for whatever reason, they can go the DR route here. Or choose to be a bit more glass jawed at the cost of defense. We have plenty of good DPS feats. What we don't have are defensive feats that allow defensive oriented toons to do the job they want to do more effectively. There is a reason DPS has been king for so long and part of that is because defensive options are incredibly limited. Only recently, we've seen the rise of a true tank type toon.

Krago
02-10-2012, 02:13 PM
The question is, are these feats good enough to be competitive for a feat slot on a toon that needs them? Toons don't have feat slots because we are trained to think that certain feats are ones we just can't live without, and for the most part that's true. We need more feats that, for lack of a better term, don't suck hardcore so they can be considered viable options. I could find space for one more feat on a defender fighter. On a sorcerer? I'd be making massive changes to fit this in. I see it as a feat for tanks looking for damage mitigation. I'd see this change as something to add in alongside an actual AC fix. In that way, ideally, most melee toons could get a usable AC if they chose to. If AC isn't an option on their build for whatever reason, they can go the DR route here. Or choose to be a bit more glass jawed at the cost of defense. We have plenty of good DPS feats. What we don't have are defensive feats that allow defensive oriented toons to do the job they want to do more effectively. There is a reason DPS has been king for so long and part of that is because defensive options are incredibly limited. Only recently, we've seen the rise of a true tank type toon.

True, as with any new design change, builds are modified to utilize the changes to their fullest effect.

My reservation is the divide the inherent DR will put on the AC world. Pj builds still take full on damage, even though their AC is 90 while the MFP build whose AC is 60 just took some % less on the same hit. That presents a very heated discussion as to how to present that situation as fair and balanced.

WangoFett
02-10-2012, 02:57 PM
More interesting attack chains for mobs are all that is needed. I don't mind if the chains have to be further spread out to +0, +0, -10, -20, at least being close to the mobs attack bonus still yields fewer hits. To mix it up more, give them a powerful attack at a much lower attack bonus that is not unreasonable for DPS melee to achieve.

Also, to address the 'nerf pyjamas' issue that seems to be confused with 'making AC matter', implementing conditions that deny dodge/DEX bonuses to AC would do that job nicely and was already in pen-n-paper.

Krago
02-10-2012, 03:05 PM
More interesting attack chains for mobs are all that is needed. I don't mind if the chains have to be further spread out to +0, +0, -10, -20, at least being close to the mobs attack bonus still yields fewer hits. To mix it up more, give them a powerful attack at a much lower attack bonus that is not unreasonable for DPS melee to achieve.

Also, to address the 'nerf pyjamas' issue that seems to be confused with 'making AC matter', implementing conditions that deny dodge/DEX bonuses to AC would do that job nicely and was already in pen-n-paper.

Now you have taken out viable AC for MFP as well.

grodon9999
02-10-2012, 03:07 PM
Also, to address the 'nerf pyjamas' issue that seems to be confused with 'making AC matter', implementing conditions that deny dodge/DEX bonuses to AC would do that job nicely and was already in pen-n-paper.

You are aware that a S&B build will be getting more AC from DEX/Dodge than he would from armor, right?

A Pajama guy gets 8 AC from armor.

An Plate mail guys gets 17 at the most from armor. The rest is all the other "stuff"

Up to 10 DEX
Dodge 3
Dodge 2
Dodge 1
Stance bonus (4 more dodge)
Stalwart bonus (3 more dodge)
Bard song (4 more dodge)

Need I go on? AC IS more about avoidance of hits that it is absorption of hits.

That said it does make sense that you shouldn't get all those bonuses when stunned or flanked. Same with blocking DR, it doesn't make any sense that you can block while getting hit from behind.

redspecter23
02-10-2012, 06:01 PM
True, as with any new design change, builds are modified to utilize the changes to their fullest effect.

My reservation is the divide the inherent DR will put on the AC world. Pj builds still take full on damage, even though their AC is 90 while the MFP build whose AC is 60 just took some % less on the same hit. That presents a very heated discussion as to how to present that situation as fair and balanced.

Any PJ build, I would assume has monk levels, therefore, they have the option to use at minimum, the first tier of earth stance for some DR%. Builds with minimal levels of monk and only able to use the first tier would have to evaluate if the bonus they get from the monk levels (increased AC) outweighs the bonus they would get from abandoning the monk levels and taking armor mastery instead (increased DR%). Any other non monk PJ toons could simply switch to light armor and get the DR% there if they chose to do so. Lots of options.

My suggestion would only work if viable AC were also able to be achieved. You could go high DR/low AC or low DR/high AC or with more investment to gear, you could have high numbers in both. A build that has neither would be glassjawed, but I'd assume they would have more DPS feats to make up for it, taking on a traditional striker role, trying not to get hit much.

Krago
02-10-2012, 07:50 PM
Any PJ build, I would assume has monk levels, therefore, they have the option to use at minimum, the first tier of earth stance for some DR%. Builds with minimal levels of monk and only able to use the first tier would have to evaluate if the bonus they get from the monk levels (increased AC) outweighs the bonus they would get from abandoning the monk levels and taking armor mastery instead (increased DR%). Any other non monk PJ toons could simply switch to light armor and get the DR% there if they chose to do so. Lots of options.

My suggestion would only work if viable AC were also able to be achieved. You could go high DR/low AC or low DR/high AC or with more investment to gear, you could have high numbers in both. A build that has neither would be glassjawed, but I'd assume they would have more DPS feats to make up for it, taking on a traditional striker role, trying not to get hit much.

Further subdividing AC is not a good approach to making AC viable. It really starts to overcomplicate the situation and put an ever bigger strain on quest design.

To try and accomodate builds that have low AC but Epic DR as to make it challenging for those builds and not easy buttons.

The simplest solution is to make the Mob's to-hit bonus more realistic, rather than 1d20+80. This allows players to gain a lot of AC without any new equipment/feats/enhancements which is a win for all builds.

maverik99
02-11-2012, 02:40 AM
guys initially sorry for my bad english...., i want make this answer because i see in this thread that one of you write a possible change of ac= a sort of damage reduction

THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE!

If turbine make that probably a thousand of people that love pure D&D rulez left the game!!

I play in khyber ,and with a my pure monk lv20 a arrived to 75ac "base" and with epic items i arrive to 90+ ac...
Probably with epics item 100+

So why nerf always ac discussion? Why speak bad of ac?
I tank lots mobs for now with 75ac and 450hp "BETTER" than some barbarians with 900hp that easy die because they always take damage and they depends on healers.

So guys.. build ac exist try to be more realist and dont write here this bad words about ac please, there are lots of player like me that have spent his time only for do the best ac build.

So have fun and see you in game guys ;)

redspecter23
02-11-2012, 12:00 PM
The simplest solution is to make the Mob's to-hit bonus more realistic, rather than 1d20+80. This allows players to gain a lot of AC without any new equipment/feats/enhancements which is a win for all builds.

I agree with that completely. It's by far the simplest solution. It's not perfect, but it has the fewest repercussions in other mechanical areas of the game. Right now, a toon that invests in AC can get a good AC for lv 19-20 elite quests in most cases. That same toon gets hit all the time in level 25 (epic) content. If theoretically, enough AC options were added to level 25 toons with the new expansion, then the problem kinda solves itself. Or at least gives toons heavily invested in AC the same bonuses in epic content that they have in non epics. It doesn't address the problem that AC lower than 90ish is the same as AC 0.

My main point however was that I think we should have good AC options as well as good DR options and that any given build should be able to attain epic level numbers in at least one and casters could get good AC or DR but have to give up DPS/DC options to get there. I don't see that as a negative to give people the option to go AC, DR, both or neither. I don't think that tying DR into AC is a good way to go. I'd rather keep them as separate so that you can build for either form of defense, but not be forced into an all or nothing DR/AC package.