# Target methods



## Thomas5251212 (Apr 18, 2005)

I've been looking over EoM for a while now, and while I like a lot of what I see, a few things have bothered me.  Figured it wouldn't hurt to bring them up and get feedback from people who've seen these in play.

The first is the two types of targetting.  When I mentioned them to my players, the touch-attack-fail-to-no-damage option seemed to them overwhelmingly more powerful than the save-fail-to-half option.  Our observation has been that barring special circumstances, touch attacks rarely fail after low levels.  I realize there are a lot more deflection bonuses (and potentially higher ones) found in EoM than orthodox D&D magic, but that seems only likely to impact spellcasters and possibly item users; its not going to change the ease of hitting your typical monster any.

Thoughts?


----------



## RangerWickett (Apr 19, 2005)

I assume you refer to Evoke spells.  Other spells don't let you bypass saves by making a touch attack.

The idea is that there is a die roll either way to determine if the spell works, and if so, how well.  Maybe my gaming experiences are different, but big bruisers are easy to hit but dangerous to get close to, or at least they're tough enough to survive a few hits.  On the other hand, humanoids and fast critters have high touch ACs if they know what's good for them.

At 10th level, an average mage would have a ranged touch attack of +8 (+5 base, +2 Dex, +1 weapon focus).  A powergamed Elf mage could have +14 (+5 base attack, +8 from 26 Dex, +1 weapon focus -ray).  A rogue at that level probably has a 17 touch AC.  A fighter or wizard probably has a 12.

If you take the save-based approach, an average 10th level mage's save DC would be 18 (+5 for a 10 MP spell, +3 from a 17 Charisma). A powergamed mage could have DC 24 (+5 for 10 MP, +2 for spell focus and greater spell focus, +7 for a 24 Charisma).  A rogue at that level probably has a +14 Reflex save.  A fighter or wizard probably has a +5.

For both approaches, a non-powergamed character has a good chance of success against non-rogues, and the powergamed character will almost definitely affect non-rogues.  The save-based version also doesn't have to worry about things like concealment, and cover grants only a +2 bonus to saves, versus a +4 bonus to AC.  *shrug*  Depends on if you like making attack rolls.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Apr 19, 2005)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> I assume you refer to Evoke spells.  Other spells don't let you bypass saves by making a touch attack.
> 
> The idea is that there is a die roll either way to determine if the spell works, and if so, how well.  Maybe my gaming experiences are different, but big bruisers are easy to hit but dangerous to get close to, or at least they're tough enough to survive a few hits.  On the other hand, humanoids and fast critters have high touch ACs if they know what's good for them.
> 
> ...



 Methinks you've underestimated the usual saving throw bonuses on weak saves (although the Touch ACs are just about right).  IMC, one of the first things that people work on is strengthening their weak saves, so they usually have some sort of Cloak of Resistance equivalent and/or the appropriate feat.  To use a core spellcasting example, people like to rap on Polar Ray as an 8th-level spell, but the 15th-level archmage in my campaign used Polar Ray as her staple attack spell specifically because it did not allow a save.  Then again, I don't remember if EoM makes it more difficult to purchase a Cloak of Resistance, so maybe it would work differently then...particularly at high levels, it becomes increasingly difficult to raise touch AC compared to poor saves.


----------



## Thomas5251212 (Apr 19, 2005)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> I assume you refer to Evoke spells.  Other spells don't let you bypass saves by making a touch attack.




Yes, I should have made that clear.



> The idea is that there is a die roll either way to determine if the spell works, and if so, how well. Maybe my gaming experiences are different, but big bruisers are easy to hit but dangerous to get close to, or at least they're tough enough to survive a few hits. On the other hand, humanoids and fast critters have high touch ACs if they know what's good for them.




The problem with that is that most of the creatures that have good touch AC also have good Reflex saves; I realize not all Evokes have Reflex saves but the majority do.; and most of those that don't have Fortitude which isn't usually much better outside of the Rogue case.



> At 10th level, an average mage would have a ranged touch attack of +8 (+5 base, +2 Dex, +1 weapon focus). A powergamed Elf mage could have +14 (+5 base attack, +8 from 26 Dex, +1 weapon focus -ray). A rogue at that level probably has a 17 touch AC. A fighter or wizard probably has a 12.




Most of the mages I've seen have been between the two, usually because of Gauntlets of Dexterity, but not a lot higher than your base; I'd have said +9 or +10.  Note that against everything but your rogue they hit on a 2 or 3.



> If you take the save-based approach, an average 10th level mage's save DC would be 18 (+5 for a 10 MP spell, +3 from a 17 Charisma). A powergamed mage could have DC 24 (+5 for 10 MP, +2 for spell focus and greater spell focus, +7 for a 24 Charisma). A rogue at that level probably has a +14 Reflex save. A fighter or wizard probably has a +5.




Actually, I've never seen a 10th level PC type with that low a save at that level.  They might be from base, but given how cheap Resistance items are, it's almost certainly going to be at least +8, and that's assuming no Dexterity enhancement.  Monsters don't do as well, but they may well be getting more base off of hit dice since CR doesn't map to dice.



> For both approaches, a non-powergamed character has a good chance of success against non-rogues, and the powergamed character will almost definitely affect non-rogues. The save-based version also doesn't have to worry about things like concealment, and cover grants only a +2 bonus to saves, versus a +4 bonus to AC. *shrug* Depends on if you like making attack rolls.




I'm thinking this ignores how many opponents a typical D&D character goes up against that has bad touch AC; almost anything large or larger, for example.  Even your default examples weren't hard.   Outside of rogues and monks, and among monsters the incorporeals, there's just not that much that seems to have a good touch AC (this doesn't mean there's nothing but they're few and far between).


----------



## Thomas5251212 (Apr 19, 2005)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Methinks you've underestimated the usual saving throw bonuses on weak saves (although the Touch ACs are just about right). IMC, one of the first things that people work on is strengthening their weak saves, so they usually have some sort of Cloak of Resistance equivalent and/or the appropriate feat. To use a core spellcasting example, people like to rap on Polar Ray as an 8th-level spell, but the 15th-level archmage in my campaign used Polar Ray as her staple attack spell specifically because it did not allow a save. Then again, I don't remember if EoM makes it more difficult to purchase a Cloak of Resistance, so maybe it would work differently then...particularly at high levels, it becomes increasingly difficult to raise touch AC compared to poor saves.




Well, to some extent its a side issue; EoM looks like it has more Deflection bonuses than standard D&D, so with magic-supported opponents it may come out in the wash; but a lot of monsters don't have magic, and most of them have lousy touch ACs;  on the other hand a fair number of them actually have decent Reflex saves, because being large only minorly harms that (because of the Dex penalty) but hit dice improvements help it.


----------



## John Q. Mayhem (Apr 22, 2005)

In my EoM[R] game, I use class defense bonuses, so touch ACs are above normal. So far, everything works fine.


----------



## Kemrain (Apr 22, 2005)

John Q. Mayhem said:
			
		

> In my EoM[R] game, I use class defense bonuses, so touch ACs are above normal. So far, everything works fine.



Same here. Haven't had a problem with it yet.

- Kemrain the Unofficial Grim 'n Gritty 3.3 Spokesbeing.


----------



## Thomas5251212 (Apr 23, 2005)

Kemrain said:
			
		

> Same here. Haven't had a problem with it yet.
> 
> - Kemrain the Unofficial Grim 'n Gritty 3.3 Spokesbeing.




Uhm, not to put too fine a point on it, but that doesn't tell me what the case will be in games that don't use class defense bonuses.


----------



## John Q. Mayhem (Apr 25, 2005)

Just accept it as a suggestion then. It works for us, and fixes the perceived problem with EoM [R].


----------



## Thomas5251212 (Apr 26, 2005)

John Q. Mayhem said:
			
		

> Just accept it as a suggestion then. It works for us, and fixes the perceived problem with EoM [R].




Doesn't it also tend to push _normal_ ACs higher, though?  I'm assuming you're using the UA version of this, which I'm not familiar with the details of, so there could be limiting factors I don't know; but given regular D&D ACs for PCs can already gust quite a bit, and EoM magic seems capable of doing a bit more of this already, this seems like it might be just trading off problems.

Comments?


----------



## Dalamar (Apr 26, 2005)

Look at it this way: if it has a low touch-AC, it most likely can survive a round or two of anything a mage can dish at it, unless said mage is really dedicated and using touch range spells. The only ones who don't fit that definition are other mages that should all have a spell to increase their touch ACs since they know it's one of their weak spots against other mages.


----------



## John Q. Mayhem (Apr 27, 2005)

Thomas5251212 said:
			
		

> Doesn't it also tend to push _normal_ ACs higher, though?  I'm assuming you're using the UA version of this, which I'm not familiar with the details of, so there could be limiting factors I don't know; but given regular D&D ACs for PCs can already gust quite a bit, and EoM magic seems capable of doing a bit more of this already, this seems like it might be just trading off problems.
> 
> Comments?




Not UA, but kinda similar. At high-level D&D, fighter classes essentially auto-hit on the first attack. 
The variant makes everyone's ACs higher, so people stay balanced with each other despite the higher ACs. 

It might help that the campaign I'm using it in is my siblings campaign, with one 12-year-old and one just 14-year old, so they're not quite so good at making uber-PCs. I'm sure it could be broken by a power-player.


----------



## Thomas5251212 (Apr 27, 2005)

Dalamar said:
			
		

> Look at it this way: if it has a low touch-AC, it most likely can survive a round or two of anything a mage can dish at it, unless said mage is really dedicated and using touch range spells. The only ones who don't fit that definition are other mages that should all have a spell to increase their touch ACs since they know it's one of their weak spots against other mages.




The issue was whether the touch version was a clear winner against the Reflex version; against all but a pretty limited subset of targets it sounds like it is.  I'm not really fond of mechanical tradeoffs that are theoretically balanced but in actuallity not, and I wanted to know if this was one before I got into using the system.  The resposnes so far seem to indicate to me that, at least when used with vanilla D&D assumptions, that's the case, and if I'm going to use it there I need to find some method of balancing them out not included in the basic system.


----------

