Removing touch AC?

[Valwyn]

What would happen if we remove touch AC and leave only regular and flat-footed AC? Would it be a problem? Casters can still target saves and use BC, so it might not be much of an issue for them. The warlock would get kind of screwed, though. Would it could give the mundanes a bit of an edge (until quickened True Strike comes into play, at least)?

[KillianHawkeye]

Well 4th Edition removed touch AC by folding it into Reflex, and that worked out fine. Then again, 4E is basically a completely different game system than 3.x is. Making a change of this kind really should prompt a reworking of the game's entire combat engine, IMO.

[FullStop]

What would happen if we remove touch AC and leave only regular and flat-footed AC? Would it be a problem? Casters can still target saves and use BC, so it might not be much of an issue for them. The warlock would get kind of screwed, though. Would it could give the mundanes a bit of an edge (until quickened True Strike comes into play, at least)?

All's I can think of is the melee options it closes off (stormguard warrior, brilliant energy weapon property, impaling weapon property off the top of my head).

[Person_Man]

In general I think it would be fine. You close off a bunch of combos, but you also close off a bunch of "loopholes" where casters have a much easier time then everyone else. But the biggest loser would be the Warlock, who would probably drop down from Tier 4 to Tier 5.

[Keneth]

Why would you want to screw over characters using touch attacks? Lower tier classes need them a lot more than pure casters. :smallconfused:

[DigoDragon]

Why would you want to screw over characters using touch attacks? Lower tier classes need them a lot more than pure casters. :smallconfused:

In my games, Touch AC rarely gets targeted outside pure casters and warlocks (and my PCs rarely play warlocks). Getting rid of Touch AC would probably not be too noticable in my circle.

[ericgrau]

I don't like throwing away a category of fun options for any player but there are still others and I don't think it would destroy the game. It wouldn't really do anything negative balance-wise to casters either. Technically having less options does make you weaker but not significantly when there are so many alternatives still remaining.

It's a much more severe nerf to arcane tricksters, spellwarp snipers and magicky rogues in general btw (even UMD wand blasters). It's also a little bit of a nerf to rogues, monks and other classes with a high touch AC. Or perhaps a buff to everyone else, which has the same effect in the end.

So I don't think it would destroy your game but I think it hurts more than it helps.

[Psyren]

You would push casters away from touch attacks - most wouldn't bother anymore. This would hurt blasters and debuffers, but controllers, buffers and summoners would barely notice. Ultimately this would do little to hinder higher-tier casters - they would simply shift more into the latter group - while lower-tier casters such as Warlocks, DNs and Warmages would feel the pinch. In short, it does little to really affect balance.

Fights against very large and durable foes, like Dragons and Giants, would become more difficult. Fights against incorporeal creatures like Undead would become a lot easier.

[Eldariel]

I think you'd need to rework a bit more than that. Combat maneuvers are reliant on Touch AC for the "connect"-bit. They also presented a reasonable way around heavy armor for martial types' part. This wouldn't be the case anymore.

Touch AC and Reflex are very similar in that both measure how well a character avoids stuff so the 4e system has sense to it. Still, you'd have to redesign at least combat maneuvers, some weapon enchantments and a bunch of spells and powers (what would happen if rays target AC instead of Touch AC? Why, casters with poor BAB and only medium Dex wouldn't use them - they're far from necessary).

[Psyren]

Touch AC and Reflex are very similar in that both measure how well a character avoids stuff so the 4e system has sense to it.

3.5/PF has it too though, because both are reliant on Dex. The only difference is that reflex saves are unaffected by armor while touch AC is.

[awa]

i think it would mess up more stuff then it would fix even for mundanes.
Grapples, trips, nets ect all become much less useful and less logical.

and like others have said the nerf for touch attacks is so high that those spells just become nonviable.

[SamBurke]

Why would you want to screw over characters using touch attacks? Lower tier classes need them a lot more than pure casters. :smallconfused:

But casters use them MUCH, MUCH, more often.

Hence the fix.

[ericgrau]

So sounds like a fighter buff, a rogue nerf and nothing at all to wizards.

Whenever a DM sneezes a rogue gets nerfed. Please, leave the poor rogues alone.

[Scow2]

I think you'd need to rework a bit more than that. Combat maneuvers are reliant on Touch AC for the "connect"-bit. They also presented a reasonable way around heavy armor for martial types' part. This wouldn't be the case anymore.I see a lot of talking from the "What can the players do" aspect... but this ignores the "What can the monsters do to the players" part.

Fighters and other heavy-armor classes would probably breath easier knowing that their armor actually works.

[Eldariel]

3.5/PF has it too though, because both are reliant on Dex. The only difference is that reflex saves are unaffected by armor while touch AC is.

Well, saves and AC work on different paradigms. Saves scale naturally (if slowly) with the starting bonus and that there are far fewer ways to buff saves than to buff AC.

[CTrees]

In my games, Touch AC rarely gets targeted outside pure casters and warlocks (and my PCs rarely play warlocks). Getting rid of Touch AC would probably not be too noticable in my circle.

I have the opposite. Two of my players target touch AC all the time, and I (as DM) do fairly often as well.

My point is, every group/party is different, and just because it wouldn't be that noticeable to some groups doesn't mean it wouldn't be a huge change to others.

[awa]

personally i would make it something like touch spells don't ignore magic armor.
that changes make it so stuff like trips and grapple still work logically.
And it has the internal logic that magic armor can protect against things mundane armor cant preserving suspension of disbelief a bit better.

[Lord Vukodlak]

All's I can think of is the melee options it closes off (stormguard warrior, brilliant energy weapon property, impaling weapon property off the top of my head).

Brilliant energy ignores armor and shields but not natural armor so it isn't touch.

[Zombimode]

So sounds like a fighter buff, a rogue nerf and nothing at all to wizards.

Since there are easily available options for warrior-types to get touch attacks, I wouldn't call it a buff.

Trip, Emerald Razor, Deep Impact just from the top of my head.

[Psyren]

But casters use them MUCH, MUCH, more often.

Hence the fix.

The "fix" simply removes a bunch of spells without actually hurting the casters' power. This won't do jack squat to Solid Fog, Stinking Cloud, Color Spray, Entangle, Glitterdust, Forcecage, any summon spell, any calling spell... it probably hurts Clerics the most and even they will simply eschew "bad touch" and rely on buffing themselves into melee juggernauts if they need to go on the offense.

[Angelalex242]

Why remove touch, but not flatfooted? If you're gonna remove AC variants, remove all of 'em. Yes, I know, alas, poor stealth classes, no flatfooted for you. But then improved uncanny dodge does that anyway.

[Psyren]

Why remove touch, but not flatfooted? If you're gonna remove AC variants, remove all of 'em. Yes, I know, alas, poor stealth classes, no flatfooted for you. But then improved uncanny dodge does that anyway.

Not everyone has IUD though, and the folks that don't have it are meant to be weak against rogue-types anyway.

[Fax Celestis]

I see a lot of talking from the "What can the players do" aspect... but this ignores the "What can the monsters do to the players" part.

Fighters and other heavy-armor classes would probably breath easier knowing that their armor actually works.

Their armor does work. It is used for full AC. Touch AC doesn't care if you're wearing plate or using a shield: if I poke you with a taser while you're wearing plate, you're going to get zapped just as much as if you're wearing leather.


personally i would make it something like touch spells don't ignore magic armor.
that changes make it so stuff like trips and grapple still work logically.
And it has the internal logic that magic armor can protect against things mundane armor cant preserving suspension of disbelief a bit better.

Here's a possibly better fix:

Armor and shield enhancement bonuses (not the base, but the +s added on) apply to touch AC.

[Psyren]

I think he meant "their armor actually works vs. casters and incorporeal threats." Against the former, this rule doesn't change much. Against the latter, it helps a lot, but it also kinda breaks the verisimilitude if a ghost can walk through a steel door but not reach through a steel codpiece.



Here's a possibly better fix:

Armor and shield enhancement bonuses (not the base, but the +s added on) apply to touch AC.

I like this better - having a max of +5 to touch AC (as opposed to near-double-digits) will help the mundanes out but they'll still be touchable. And it shows that it's really the magic keeping the ghostly critters away.

[Fax Celestis]

I like this better - having a max of +5 to touch AC (as opposed to near-double-digits) will help the mundanes out but they'll still be touchable. And it shows that it's really the magic keeping the ghostly critters away.

Well, +10. Armor and shield together.

[Psyren]

Well, +10. Armor and shield together.

Point :smalltongue:

This does devalue Ghost Touch a bit for light-armor/light-shield wearers though.

[Keneth]

I basically just apply shield bonuses (total, not just enhancement) to touch attacks. So far, my players appreciated it.

[Fax Celestis]

Point :smalltongue:

This does devalue Ghost Touch a bit for light-armor/light-shield wearers though.

Not really. Ghost touch full plate +1 is a +9 vs incorporeal touch attacks instead of a +1. I'd buy it.

[Spore]

Whenever a DM sneezes a rogue gets nerfed. Please, leave the poor rogues alone.

May I sig?

[Psyren]

Not really. Ghost touch full plate +1 is a +9 vs incorporeal touch attacks instead of a +1. I'd buy it.

Full Plate isn't light armor - that was my point.

[Fax Celestis]

Oh, true. Well, they get a Dex bonus to touch AC, so it evens out, I think.

[Ansem]

Well 4th Edition removed touch AC by folding it into Reflex, and that worked out fine. Then again, 4E is basically a completely different game system than 3.x is. Making a change of this kind really should prompt a reworking of the game's entire combat engine, IMO.

Don't go there..... please.....

[Talya]

As a general rule, a caster who's focusing on touch attacks isn't the one breaking your game.

However, if you replace touch AC with full AC, you seriously mess up melees and warlocks and martial adepts and such.