Post/Author/DateTime	Post
BevisIscariot 01-23-07, 10:33 PM	So, I was thinking, and touch AC for spells seems like a crock. You can look at it two ways: either the spell in question affects inanimate matter or it doesn't. For instance, a lightning bolt might damage a door, but slay living would not. In either case, I don't see how a touch AC would apply. If the spell can damage inanimate material, then putting armor between you and the spell would matter, because it would have to get through that first; if the spell can't affect inanimate matter, then it would need to actually touch your skin, and covering your skin with armor would make that harder to do. So . . . I'm getting rid of it. As numerous people on these boards have already pointed out , the spellcasting classes outpower the melee classes anyway. Any thoughts, pro or con?
SephDragoon 01-23-07, 10:52 PM	Yeah... get rid of flatfooted AC too... I mean, you are always weaving around and dodging... so even if you are flatfooted, you are still moving right? Pfft, this is the biggest load of crap I've ever read dude. Lightning bolt is ****ing electricity, do you think your platemail is going to help you? No! It freaking conducts electricity to you. Finger of death is in essense an incorporeal touch, goes through armor. Other spells, they are just seeing if you can aim it right or not... it has nothing to do with if it touches you or not, it has to do with if you are in its line of effect when it is fired... Hence, touch still allows you to dodge out of the way.
BevisIscariot 01-23-07, 11:51 PM	Okay, lightning bolt was a bad example, since it doesn't require an attack roll, but I still think the general principle is sound. In fact, if, as you say, it's all about line of effect, then all ranged touch spells should work like lighning bolt and simply require a save. As far as this, "In essence" an incorporeal touch business goes, well, it either is or it isn't.
Sphyre 01-24-07, 12:13 AM	In that case, clothes would give AC, right? Because you can't touch a touch spell through clothing. That means you'd only be able to really reliably touch naked people. The entire concept of touch AC is it needs to get to the person. If you fire a ray of disintigration, that armor isn't going to help you. If you dodge out of the way by making the ray miss you and go past you, you're in the clear. But if it hits you anywhere, you're getting disintigrated. The difference between lightning bolt and a ray is that a lightning bolt is a charge of electricity that fills an area. A save represents your ability to stay out of the parts in that area that damage the most, or only be partiallyl in the area. Either way, you're in the area of effect when it's cast no matter what. A ray is a concentrated line, much like an arrow, that merely needs to hit it's target. Since it doesn't have to peirce armor like an arrow, armor doesn't count for defending against it. If you get hit by that ray, you are affected by it. Some particularly strong rays (such as disintigrate) also require a save, but weaker ones don't. So, yes. Ditching Touch AC is a bad idea. I wouldn't recommend it.
kadeity 01-24-07, 12:22 AM	Why even use AC. lets just flip a coin to see if you hit ^_^ In fact, i think eldritch blast should just Bounce right off of a mirror. it is a RAY right? so we just need to polish our armor!!! TOUCH AC means, can it TOUCH you. lazers and the like...they can touch you pretty easily. And as for melee outweighing magic.... after TOB, i dont think so anymore. :D
BevisIscariot 01-24-07, 12:41 AM	I appreciate the civil feedback -- and maybe ditching it is a bad idea. But most of what you guys are saying is based on the as written rules of touch AC. As far as the rules are written, yeah, you're right -- it works like it works and I understand that. My problem is with the entire idea -- that these spells just need to touch something touching you, like everything in the world is a [I]Harm[I] conductor or something, even though harm can't affect rock or wood or metal in any other way whatsoever. So if I've got metal between me and that spell, doesn't that count for something?
LiefKarakse 01-24-07, 12:47 AM	don't nerf spells ok just remember the old saying if it ain't broke don't fix it
Ace_of_Diamonds 01-24-07, 01:19 AM	So if I've got metal between me and that spell, doesn't that count for something? No.
Sphyre 01-24-07, 02:10 AM	My problem is with the entire idea -- that these spells just need to touch something touching you, like everything in the world is a [I]Harm[I] conductor or something, even though harm can't affect rock or wood or metal in any other way whatsoever. So if I've got metal between me and that spell, doesn't that count for something? I've got clothes between me and you. Shouldn't that count for something? Simply put it doesn't. It's magical energy It doesn't discriminate against cloth, wood or metal. If it can be worn it will effect you. A more practical houserule would be having a houserule that for every X points of hardness something has, it increases the touch AC against certain spells by 1, upto a maximum amount that that armor grants. This way, you address your specific issue, but don't change the concept of touch attacks at all. I do though, disagree with you. I don't care if you're wearing fullplate, unless it's magically enhanced to ward off touch attacks, that disintigrate hit you and is going to effect you.
ArcTan 01-24-07, 02:16 AM	I appreciate the civil feedback -- and maybe ditching it is a bad idea. But most of what you guys are saying is based on the as written rules of touch AC. As far as the rules are written, yeah, you're right -- it works like it works and I understand that. My problem is with the entire idea -- that these spells just need to touch something touching you, like everything in the world is a [I]Harm[I] conductor or something, even though harm can't affect rock or wood or metal in any other way whatsoever. So if I've got metal between me and that spell, doesn't that count for something? The harm doesn't harm it. It goes *through* it. Why are you acting like you have to be able to damage something in order to go through it? It's the *opposite* -- this kind of magic has a very short range, but it ignores physical objects. The harm is negative energy that goes straight through inanimate matter as though it didn't exist and harms your flesh -- or, at least, is capable of doing so for as many layers as exist in a typical amount of armor but not, say, a foot-thick stone wall. Why is this counterintuitive? It seems a lot like how things like radiation work in real life. Gamma rays go through your clothes, leaving them largely unharmed, and your flesh, leaving it harmed (because a living thing cares a hell of a lot more about whether random atoms inside of it have been ionized than an unliving thing does).
Tyler Do'Urden 01-24-07, 02:27 AM	Armor adds to your AC because you have to hit them harder to get through their armor. A touch effect doesn't have to hit hard enough for them to feel it, it just has to make contact. It's not about living or nonliving.
Silverthumb128 01-24-07, 02:41 AM	My problem is with the entire idea -- that these spells just need to touch something touching you, like everything in the world is a [I]Harm[I] conductor or something, even though harm can't affect rock or wood or metal in any other way whatsoever. Its magic. Why shouldn't magic be able to pass through armor to hit you? It can take the form of any object, element, and can undo the above, and more.
Novacat 01-24-07, 03:11 AM	Remember that in D&D, what you have on you, both worn and held, are treated in most respects as though it were part of you. Hitting your armor with a touch spell will affect you just a surely as an Enlarge Person spell will also enlarge your equipment. Armor cannot be relied upon to protect you from such spells, because hitting the armor is, in effect, hitting you. That is why touch AC exists. It represents your ability to defend yourself in the event your armor is useless.
Yaeri 01-24-07, 04:42 AM	The OP isn't debating what the rules say. He's asking for the why of it in a 'realism' way. For example, if touch spells can go "through" armor, can't you then be hit by a ray when you're standing with your back against a thin metal door and someone shoots at you from the other side? (ignoring for a moment the fact that they can't see you. Supose they have X-ray vision or something) I always saw rays as something that once they hit something, splashed over and around it. All in all, they're just flavour explanations for something that's there because of balance reasons.
ArcTan 01-24-07, 04:56 AM	The OP isn't debating what the rules say. He's asking for the why of it in a 'realism' way. For example, if touch spells can go "through" armor, can't you then be hit by a ray when you're standing with your back against a thin metal door and someone shoots at you from the other side? (ignoring for a moment the fact that they can't see you. Supose they have X-ray vision or something) I always saw rays as something that once they hit something, splashed over and around it. Okay. That works. No problem. All in all, they're just flavour explanations for something that's there because of balance reasons. Honestly, I'd find it more unrealistic if magic rays *didn't* penetrate armor than if they did.
DigitalMage 01-24-07, 07:33 AM	As has been said, you can explain it by saying that the clothes and immediate equipment of a person are considered a part of the magical whole that is that person - the clothes you wear and the sword you carry are symbolically a part of you in a magical sense and so "hitting" your armour is as good as "hitting" you for some spells. That thin metal door you are hiding behind however it symbolically and magically not a part of you and so provides cover that inhibits the ability of a spell to hit (as it has to target a smaller proportion of the victim). This reasoning is similar to Shadowrun where most combat spells do not have a particularly visible effect on the physical plane, instead the magic force travels through the astral plane and "grounds" into the aura of the person, thus the composition of their clothes is immaterial, all that inhibits a mage's capability to hit a target is what prevents the mage seeing the target.
Escef 01-24-07, 09:59 AM	For positive/negative energy effects, you could think of it as a characters aura encapsulates his equipment (thus granting his saves to it as well), and that when a touch spell gets close enough it rides the aura in.
Silverthumb128 01-24-07, 12:39 PM	The OP isn't debating what the rules say. He's asking for the why of it in a 'realism' way. I agree, but I don't think magical effects can be debated with realism.
Grand Theft Otto 01-24-07, 01:11 PM	Grab a laser pointer. Try and hit someone with it. Fill a bucket with water and throw it at someone. That's touch AC vs. saving throw. That scorching ray is a tiny beam. Even if it hits part of you, it still explodes around you. On the other hand, the bucket of water offers more of an opportunity to not get hit, or at least get less wet. If your hand gets wet, you're only a little wet. I think the system works fine now.
Grand Theft Otto 01-24-07, 01:13 PM	like everything in the world is a [I]Harm[I] conductor or something, even though harm can't affect rock or wood or metal in any other way whatsoever. So if I've got metal between me and that spell, doesn't that count for something? No. If you're touched, you're touched. Doesnt matter where, or how fleeting, the energy attacks your soul.
Kursk 01-24-07, 01:28 PM	Yeah... get rid of flatfooted AC too... I mean, you are always weaving around and dodging... so even if you are flatfooted, you are still moving right? I ditch flatfooted long ago. As far as touch goes I just removed the rule calling for no AoO against the spellcaster.
kelvinaw273 01-24-07, 06:19 PM	Don't ditch Touch AC. Consider: You shoot an arrow at somebody; it either hits and penetrates armour, hits and misses, or hits and glances off/gets stuck. Now throw a blob of acid at someone. If it hits, it will penetrate the openings in armour armour or clothing easily (medieval armour is not sealed against liquids - in fact most modern forms of armour aren't) if it does not splash into your face or some uncovered area. Hence the question of hitting and not penetrating does not arise. Yes, some forms of energy may be protectable against in theory with some sorts of armour - a scorching ray, if it is like a laser, may not pierce metal armour - but maybe it will heat it up, causing indirect burns to the wearer. Maybe it doesn't penetrate leather but sets it alight. Final result is the same, you get hit, you get hurt. For simplicity, I use Touch AC for all these attacks. As somebody said, if it ain't broke ... don't fix it!
SephDragoon 01-24-07, 09:36 PM	Seriously... do you want to start having spells damage armor instead if it meats the touch ac but not the full ac of a character? Because that is the only realistic way to do it. And that is not a fun idea trust me... that'll make your armor die pretty quickly.
Ogre4Hire 01-24-07, 10:57 PM	If you ditch Touch AC, it suddenly means that Ray spells are nearly useless, as mages, with their exceedingly low BAB, are going to need to roll really high to hit. And as they're limited in spells/day, potshots aren't really viable tactics for them. Which means that they'll be forced to rely more on AoE spells or autohit spells like Magic Missile.
dalamb 01-24-07, 11:10 PM	I ditch flatfooted long ago.Doesn't that nerf Sneak Attack somewhat?
BevisIscariot 01-24-07, 11:37 PM	If you ditch Touch AC, it suddenly means that Ray spells are nearly useless, as mages, with their exceedingly low BAB, are going to need to roll really high to hit. And as they're limited in spells/day, potshots aren't really viable tactics for them. Which means that they'll be forced to rely more on AoE spells or autohit spells like Magic Missile. I'd considered that. The two possible alternatives: have ray spells act like lightning bolt (line of effect, saving throw, etc.) or have spellcasters use a fighter's BAB for ray spells, sort of like melf's worked in 2nd ed.
Grand Theft Otto 01-25-07, 11:02 AM	I'd considered that. The two possible alternatives: have ray spells act like lightning bolt (line of effect, saving throw, etc.) or have spellcasters use a fighter's BAB for ray spells, sort of like melf's worked in 2nd ed. Doesnt bode well for the warlock, who gets the short end of the stick. In general, we've listed why its a bad idea, and why touch attacks make sense. You do what ya want chief.
Kursk 01-26-07, 06:45 PM	Doesn't that nerf Sneak Attack somewhat? Only ditched the part about no dex bonus to AC.
Nidair 01-27-07, 07:24 AM	I think I'm going to test this out. First, I'm firing a ray (which requires a ranged touch attack) at my girlfriend and see if I hit. Then I give her kevlar and again fire a ray at her, and see if I hit. Though I still have to find a ray who is willing enough to be used as living projectile, I think I already know the answer.