I was thinking that some APs, such as Serpent's Skull or Skull & Shackles, would thematically benefit from non-armor based AC mechanics like the defense bonus described here.
Unfortunately my searches through Ultimate Combat and the PFSRD don't turn up anything like that.
Is there a reason such an option is not presented in PFRPG? No beef to just add it from the D20SRD, but I'm curious if there was a reason it wasn't presented as a variant option along with DR or piecemeal armor?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A few reasons.
1. Reliance on gear is a massive sacred cow in this game. People apparently like the idea that a mighty warrior stripped of his gear can't hardly defend himself. It's more "realistic."
2. Iterative Attacks would never have a hope of hitting if AC actually went up on its own.
3. Ties in w/ #2, but as the game reaches higher levels, the purpose of AC changes. Instead of using it to avoid damage completely from the enemy's oslaught, it becomes more of a damage mitigation. The first attack is going to hit you unless the foe rolls a 1 or is taking huge penalties. AC isn't to stop that. It's to stop the iteratives and secondary natural attacks. It's to make Power Attack the not-always-right-answer. Why did the designers go this route? Because...
--> 3a. HP scales up fairly fast (every time con mod goes up...); damage barely scales up at all. If people weren't regularly hitting, it'd take way too long to hack through all that hp, potentially.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A few reasons.
1. Reliance on gear is a massive sacred cow in this game. People apparently like the idea that a mighty warrior stripped of his gear can't hardly defend himself. It's more "realistic."
God, I hate that so much.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think reliance on gear is in the game only because it's a sacred cow. It's also in the game because players like getting loot.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
But instead of the loot doing cool things completely to the side of number crunching damage per round stuff (like flight, creating holograms, making food, etc...) the most sought after items are the ones that add +X's to stuff.
You could have a game where no magic items boosting mechanical combat output whatsoever and still have a treasure trove of awesome magic items. You don't *need* to build reliance on AC boosters, save bonuses, etc... into the system in order to have the joy of finding loot.
It's there because that's how it's always been.
Eh. Anecdotal, but I don't particularly favor getting one kind of loot over the other, and I see no inherent value in removing the one. One session I might get a Ring of Protection +2...sweet! Next session it might be Wings of Flying...awesome!
How does removing the Ring of Protection make the game better?
|
Is there a reason such an option is not presented in PFRPG? No beef to just add it from the D20SRD, but I'm curious if there was a reason it wasn't presented as a variant option along with DR or piecemeal armor?
Because adding that option is a great way to mess with a lot of game mechanics.
Problem n. 1
Defense bonus are untyped bonuses to AC, so they count for Touch AC.
- firearms balance change as they lose one of their main advantages
- touch attacks balance change as it become harder to hit a target
Problem n. 2
Some class benefit lose its importance.
Where is the benefit for a fighter armor training if other classes can get the same AC while eschewing armor and avoiding the linked problems of encumbrance lower maximum speed?
Some problem for the dwarf racial advantage.
I have no doubt that there would be other adjustment to be done in other sections of the rules.
Rebalancing those aspects of the game would require rewriting major sections of the rules, so it isn't a "optional rule", it is a rewriting of the assumption of the game. There are other d20 products that start with those assumption and use them so there isn't the incentive to redo Pathfindeer to include this kind of variation.
While I completely understand the balancing issues with using these rules, I can't say I care much. In fact, I almost think it doesn't go far enough, but the more I think about it, the more flaws I see with it.
I'd love it if this system was somehow able to do away with all the +AC items that comprise the Big Six so players no longer had to feel obligated getting those just so they could survive an encounter, but with this kind of AC being untyped, there's really nothing stopping a person from buying those items anyway and then having really insane levels of AC.
Definitely a nice idea and it'd be really cool if the kinks were worked out of this so not everyone felt chained to a specific type of armor or selection of magic items that people say is the "best" for them.
|
How does removing the Ring of Protection make the game better?
No one said anything about removing it. Just removing the dependency on it.
If not every character is expected to have a ring of protection, the ones who choose to have one are then more special. Because it's a choice and not a requirement.
If not every character is expected to have a ring of protection, the ones who choose to have one are then more special. Because it's a choice and not a requirement.
Nobody is going to choose to be dependent. If you can get the same benefits without the ring, why would you want it? The "more special" argument is silly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Running a game with rules for that now (homebrewed). The way we do it is classes with the good attack progression start with a +3 to their "defense" and it goes up with every even numbered bonus to hit. Medium attack progression starts with a +2 and goes up every even numbered increase, and classes with the poor attack progression start with +1 and advances the same way. We also use armor as damage reduction. This may not work for everyone, but it does for us, especially running a city based campaign where someone wouldn't be walking around in full plate just to get lunch.
Where is the benefit for a fighter armor training if other classes can get the same AC while eschewing armor and avoiding the linked problems of encumbrance lower maximum speed?
My rebuttal to that is to ask why the fighter and other armor-dependent classes being punished in adventures such as Serpent's Skull where heavy armor users are handicapped to the extreme heat, or to Skull & Shackles where heavy armor could lead strait to the bottom of the sea.
The Armiger from super genius games is a defense based class if i remember correctly.
Well, you aren't being punished for having heavy armor. You are simply incurring the penalties that were associated with it all along. There are no special rules in those games beyond the standard core rules. They didn't add a sinking clause, the penalty to swim was there all along. Don't be angry that you are encountering penalties that you knew about yet thought wouldn't come up.
As for doing an armor-less system... why? Bracers of armor are in the game along with folding plate, glamoured armor, etc etc. You want to walk around the gala in armor without looking like it? That's not free. Want to not sink while wearing full plate, there is a cost for that too.
The game system is (relatively) balanced around those environmental penalties being occasional inconveniences, not constant fixtures throughout the whole campaign. And if someone's already annoyed because of the whole martial/caster thing, adding further penalties to armor that don't touch armorless wizards is going to annoy them.
Remember also that if you're starting at first-level, you can't yet afford all those nice things that let you use your standard equipment without risking instant death.
The Armiger from super genius games is a defense based class if i remember correctly.
Posting after misreading the title and reading nothing else is a bad idea.
Well, you aren't being punished for having heavy armor. You are simply incurring the penalties that were associated with it all along. There are no special rules in those games beyond the standard core rules. They didn't add a sinking clause, the penalty to swim was there all along. Don't be angry that you are encountering penalties that you knew about yet thought wouldn't come up.
But if you were going to play an entire campaign at sea (let's say a piratical AP whose name escapes me), and one of your class' main abilities is to wear heavy armor, wouldn't you think one of your main abilities was riskier to use than another class'?
Anybody remember the undead-heavy Age of Worms AP and how it limited the sneak attack ability of rogues? The end result was Pathfinder RPG being written to allow rogues to sneak attack undead.
Or maybe you'll choose to play something that isn't a big dumb full plate wearing invalid with str score jacked up past roids level without a single point in swim because who can afford to spend that point when they dumped int to retard status?
I was going to make a counterpoint but honestly this sentence here is a better argument against your entire post than anything I could type.
Because adding that option is a great way to mess with a lot of game mechanics.
Problem n. 1
Defense bonus are untyped bonuses to AC, so they count for Touch AC.
- firearms balance change as they lose one of their main advantages
- touch attacks balance change as it become harder to hit a target
I'm currently running Red Hand of Doom (PF) with PF armor as DR and D20's class defense variants.
(But only dragons get D bonus, highest, 1/2 dragons get it if have RHD)Yes, most people hit a lot.
Firearms bypass Shield bonus to AC. Shields aren't DR but AC.
Only armor block class defense bonus, not Shields.
It does make Monks better, but they don't rely on Mage armor as much to make up for it.
Problem n. 2
Some class benefit lose its importance.
Where is the benefit for a fighter armor training if other classes can get the same AC while eschewing armor and avoiding the linked problems of encumbrance lower maximum speed?
Some problem for the dwarf racial advantage.
Dwarfs choose armor that doesn't slow or a much lower Class bonus.
Fighters can wear armor and get benefits or don't wear armor, get class bonus (lower than armor) and get an archetype that exchanges armor training.
Rebalancing those aspects of the game would require rewriting major sections of the rules, so it isn't a "optional rule", it is a rewriting of the assumption of the game. There are other d20 products that start with those assumption and use them so there isn't the incentive to redo Pathfindeer to include this kind of variation.
Nope, no rewriting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Armiger from super genius games is a defense based class if i remember correctly.Posting after misreading the title and reading nothing else is a bad idea.
everyone makes mistakes. you should be a little bit more understanding before posting something that could be taken as an insult.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Class-based or level-based defense is really intended for settings where armor as known in the fantasy world is irrelevant or simply not available.
This is the system you use when you are playing a modern game, such as d20 Modern, or Call of Cthulhu. It's helpful there, and makes sense. In fact, I'm using a variant for our Revolutionary War Halloween Game this year.
For most Pathfinder settings, it removes the need to buy armor (unless you are using armor as damage reduction - things getting more and more complicated as more rules are being added). If everybody is not onboard, it creates a situation where some are "wasting" funds and resources, comparative to others, which unbalances things and makes some players unhappy.
Class based defense (and for that matter Damage Reduction) would fundamentally change the game. You would have to get rid of HP bloat for that to work. If that is your cup of tea, play GURPS.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
I'd say if your group decides to run Skulls & Shackles and one player's go-to concept is "fullplate guy" then that's a symptom of a group problem. The players should know going in that they are going to be aboard ships a lot, or trekking through steaming jungles, or what have you, and know beforehand that some character choices will be more challenging in those environments.
The real problem with class-based defense is that it ends up either being better or worse than armor, and players will gravitate towards what they perceive as the stronger choice. So you either end up with a bunch of naked fighters, and monks and wizards with super AC, or everybody ignores class defense and piles on the armor anyway.
Armor as DR might work in an E6 style game, but it's really hard to keep armor DR relavent when a level 2 character can have full plate and expects to get hit for 5-10 at a time, and a level 15 character has +3 full plate and expects to get hit for 40+ at a time. How does the DR matter for L15 guy but not break the game for L2?
I'd say if your group decides to run Skulls & Shackles and one player's go-to concept is "fullplate guy" then that's a symptom of a group problem. The players should know going in that they are going to be aboard ships a lot, or trekking through steaming jungles, or what have you, and know beforehand that some character choices will be more challenging in those environments.
The real problem with class-based defense is that it ends up either being better or worse than armor, and players will gravitate towards what they perceive as the stronger choice. So you either end up with a bunch of naked fighters, and monks and wizards with super AC, or everybody ignores class defense and piles on the armor anyway.
Armor as DR might work in an E6 style game, but it's really hard to keep armor DR relavent when a level 2 character can have full plate and expects to get hit for 5-10 at a time, and a level 15 character has +3 full plate and expects to get hit for 40+ at a time. How does the DR matter for L15 guy but not break the game for L2?
Dude, Mage armor is not super AC, is it?
Because Class defense bonus for Mond/Wizard/Sorcerers is +2 at level 1 (this grows), becomes +4 at level 6, and so till it becomes +8 at level 20.
All this means is Monk don't need to beg casters to cast Mage atrmor on them by level 6 (before then Mage armor is stronger)
Fighters get better AC from armor, but higher check penalties.
Eh. Anecdotal, but I don't particularly favor getting one kind of loot over the other, and I see no inherent value in removing the one. One session I might get a Ring of Protection +2...sweet! Next session it might be Wings of Flying...awesome!
How does removing the Ring of Protection make the game better?
By making it "Ring of Protection: once per day, you turn a critical into a normal hit", for example.
It's not that the game will be better without Rings of Protection (and bland +2 armors and shields). It's that it will be better if it allow a wider number of viable characters, because right now, lot's of character concepts aren't viable because of this. The knight who uses his father's heirloom sword, the wandering monk who gives up treasure and worldly rewards, the naked barbarian with a loincloth and superstition distate of magical items, or the daredevil swashbuckler that wear nothing but a linen shirt aren't possible beyond level 4 because magic items are required as part of character advancement.
It's not good or bad. It's a matter of playstyle. Pathfinder chosed to keep feeding this particular sacred cow, as StreamOfTheSky beautifully rounded in the first post. I'm fine with it, but will also be fine without it.
Having more options is always good, though. And I'd like to be able to play Conan without needing to use a +6 str belt, mithril full plate, amulet of natural armor, cloak of resistance, ring of protection and magical sword.
Or maybe you'll choose to play something that isn't a big dumb full plate wearing invalid with str score jacked up past roids level without a single point in swim because who can afford to spend that point when they dumped int to retard status?
At 4th level, a Fighter with STR 18, Armor training, and a single skill point in swim has +4 to swim checks with a masterwork Full plate (1 rank +3 class bonus +4 str -4 Armor Check Penalty). The wizard right besides him has probably +0 or so (even worse, if he dumped str).
By level 12, the fighter have probably around +8 str bonus, +3 class training and 1 rank (if he didn't bother to put anything else), without zero check penalty in his mitrhil full plate, or -2 for a regular magic Full Plate, for a bonus that is around +10/+12 with a single skill point. That's about what Michael Phelps have, mind you. The wizard still has -1 to +0 (not that he cares, with fly, teleport, dimensional door and all kind of warping reality stuff)
So I'm not sure what game are you talking about, but it's not pathfinder.
I'd say if your group decides to run Skulls & Shackles and one player's go-to concept is "fullplate guy" then that's a symptom of a group problem.
Understood, and you're right to a certain degree. I know it's Paizo's policy that players should go into an AP with a certain level of understanding about what the campaign's going to be about and plan their characters accordingly to fit better.
Still, since the option existed before, and the team did so much work into reworking armor as DR in Ultimate Combat, I'm curious why they didn't address class-based defense.
I like the D20 Conan Game...no magic Items, Spellcasting is more background oriented
Armor Absorbs damage
Each Class has a Dodge and Parry Defense rating that scales with level
To Hit...with a melee wepaon for example. BAB+Str+Feats+Wpn Quality
vs Defense...Dex, Class Bonus to Parry or Dodge, Feats, etc
If you hit...Armor absorbs part of the damage...the heavier the armor the more it absorbs.
The downside to Heavy Armor is that it limits how much Dex you can apply to your AC and has penalties to all your Physical skills
Fun to play but lethel and short combats...no montyhaulish loads of magical loot...grittier and more realistic
Players dont get as attached to their gear...if the ship is sinking throw the plate armor overboard and swim for it...can always get mor armor later.
Without all the magic available simple things like food, water, mounts and the vagaries of overland travel become more important...even choosing when to fight as healing is much more limited.
Fun game but not for those who have to play their Elf Wizard with more geegaws than a rodeo clown
On the times I use a Defense bonus to AC, I use the Reflex save. Fighters, with a poor Ref would still rather rely on armor so would still benefit from armor training. I don't understand the need to add another class based stat, since the Ref save is a character's ability to react to danger. I do believe that combat can be considered a danger. lol