PDA

View Full Version : %AC abilities suggestion



PsychoBlonde
11-18-2012, 01:07 PM
Feats like Combat Expertise are really becoming quite useless--yeah, it increases my AC-specced character's AC by 8 points. Their defense chance at level goes up by 2%. That's lousy.

So, my suggestion is this: bonuses that apply X% increase to AC should apply that increase *directly* to defense chance instead of to your numerical AC. So if I have a 66% defense chance from my raw AC, if I turn on combat expertise, that should become a 76% defense chance.

This method would mean that the value of these specific feats/special abilities remains constant over levels and over changes to your base AC. It'd give AC-based characters a chance once again to push for some decent hit reduction numbers while keeping the new system that allows for non-specs to get at least SOME reduction. It would also make various effects that apply different types of bonuses to be more mechanically distinct and allow for more breadth in this area.

Also, I think it's time that Combat Expertise ceases to reduce your attack and to be mutually exclusive with Power Attack. CE really ought to decrease your PRR now instead of your attack. You could put in a converse version that increases your PRR but decreases your defense chance. Or perhaps your dodge. But attack AND damage output potential and defense shouldn't be linked in this way.

shadereaper33
11-18-2012, 01:40 PM
I can agree with the change to the functionality of combat expertise, but not the change to the penalty. Combat expertise is a means to fight defensively, which allows the user to reduce incoming damage at the cost of outgoing damage. If your suggestions to change the cost to PRR or dodge, and remove the exclusivity with power attack, this feat would either become a net gain or net loss to incoming damage with no actual drawback to using it at all. That would mean that this feat would in turn become a "required" feat in much the same way toughness is "required".

PsychoBlonde
11-19-2012, 12:35 PM
If your suggestions to change the cost to PRR or dodge, and remove the exclusivity with power attack, this feat would either become a net gain or net loss to incoming damage with no actual drawback to using it at all. That would mean that this feat would in turn become a "required" feat in much the same way toughness is "required".

Why does there *need* to be a loss to using it? Precision doesn't cause you to lose anything when you use it. Rapid shot doesn't cause you to lose anything when you use it. Feats are supposed to be *benefits*.

The balance between defense and offense in the game is currently broken, and part of the reason for it is that defense is not just single-tied but double-tied to offense. Not only are you giving up the opportunity to take offensive abilities by choosing defensive ones, but the defensive abilities themselves additionally limit your offensive options. If you want an analogy, it is like having defensive spells for casters not just take up a slot, but actually *prevent* the caster from casting offensive spells while they have the buff active. I don't see fire shield making it impossible for you to cast cold spells.

Mutants and Masterminds (another d20 system) handles the defense/offense balance in a similar way, but they don't have the same kinds of double linkage. Instead, if you have a very high defense, this is tied to your ability to absorb damage. Increasing one lowers the cap on the other. If you have high damage, this lowers your ability to hit. Increasing one lowers the cap on the other. Feats like Power Attack or Precision or Combat Expertise aren't benefits the way feats are in DDO, what they do is allow a degree of situational flexibility. But they don't do that in DDO--their ultimate functional operation in this game is not one of flexibility but of flat benefit.

Caster benefits *stack*. Why should benefits for non-casters all be mutually exclusive?

donfilibuster
11-19-2012, 12:59 PM
The "defense chance" and it's diminishing curve has stirred a lot of confusion since it was added.
As it is now one has to wait until epic destinies to get stances that raise the AC by a %, only then it makes a bit more sense.

Giving a fixed defense % may not be far fetched, altough it'd be dangerous to stop having feats work on AC.
Next thing we'll want these everywhere and ditch AC, it has happened before PRR that many players suggested ditching AC for some form of DR.
The game needs more stats, rather than taking them away. If there's gonna be simplification it must be for the right reasons.

While at this, i may suggest listing the defense chances to the monsters in the manual.
This way we will have something more specific to compare the effectiveness of the defense chance.
The global defense chance would still appear in the character and inventory panels.

It will also be something good to have in the manuals, beside being able to watch the hp of the creatures.
It can be one of the rewards and also one more thing to promote buying them and make it worth the price.

Missing_Minds
11-19-2012, 01:13 PM
Precision doesn't cause you to lose anything when you use it.
http://compendium.ddo.com/wiki/Feat:Precision

"While using Precision mode, you trade half of your damage for a +4 bonus to your attack rolls, and bypass 25% fortification."

No loss, huh?

Krelar
11-19-2012, 02:23 PM
http://compendium.ddo.com/wiki/Feat:Precision

"While using Precision mode, you trade half of your damage for a +4 bonus to your attack rolls, and bypass 25% fortification."

No loss, huh?

Look slike no one has updated the compendium. That's the old version.


New Version Since U14:
http://ddowiki.com/page/Precision

Precision
Cooldown: 30 seconds
Usage: Active, Toggled Stance
Prerequisite: Dexterity 13+, base attack bonus of +1 or higher
Description

While using Precision mode, you gain +5% to hit and reduce the target's fortification against your attacks by 25%.

Missing_Minds
11-19-2012, 02:50 PM
Look slike no one has updated the compendium. That's the old version.

http://compendium.ddo.com/wiki/Release_Notes_Update_14_Official

Doesn't that figure. Thank you for that update I missed when going through U14.